+. oA & ~ "2, 
- Ries Ney 
es > ; A 
=e : 
| ) | eas 
r 19 
‘ 


tes 
at GAS 
PSOne tc 
oy 


echt ees 4 
prcstien pans 
ae 

cS 

Ta 

tek: 


oat 


i ¥ (t4 ; / 
cat Ary} Ty 
tae! gat 

; tig 
n! ens i 
s | 
Se Sars e 


ri 


J 
ea! 
3% 


a ST 
US 
le 


<f, 


G 





3% 


gre ie 
f 
| pit 
Breet ry 
a er . : 
recent 


vs 
: [ bide 
< Tr) . & 3 7 
Bee 4 it wa 
SMa on Sercin nae: eo 
nS "ries fens en rased 
J % 


nrg 
i rete pols fi; 7 
ee ears 
: : 
: Seages 
ae - 
| | rashes ¢ 
3 . oe Png 
: Sees 
vee 


ees 
S 


coekd fice i 
thee 
“Ne 
> 

= 
. 
= 


Bees aoe? 
ve wg AO ITe 

. Linea < 

. ; 

, 

* 


We 


‘ 


er! 


BS 


Seaeaea 2 
eae Z sie 
are 
. “ GS 
Ss : 
NES Nes 


Ss 


ese 
at 
m~ 
8 Gee Ss 
: 
Sy 


OR A AS 
ae oe 
peers 
asst f 
ren re 
Seen 
* 
emi 
nette 





man 
Ve 


NTRS 
soe, 











Riera 


RIA 





EARS 
, 

Eds Shi eee 

eas 


aA EeT 


yifeks 


wee nN, 


en ee 





Seay “% y 

















: oe wht F : Feces —S fe Pa Bay Se 


ca xe reve te 


ie ‘ eat, 
zi 2S 





WORKS 


OF 


FREDERIC HUIDEKOPER. 


VOLUME II. 


INDIRECT TESTIMONY. ACTA PILATI. 
CHRIST’S MISSION TO THE UNDERWORLD. 





NEW YORK: 
DAVID G FRANCIS. 
1887. 


INDIRECT 


_ 'RESTIMONY OF HISTORY 


TO THE 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 


BY 


FREDERIC HUIDEKOPER. 
vi ‘ 





NEW YORK: 
DAVID G FRANCIS. 
1887. 





PREFACE. 





TuHE history of mankind evinces that civilization has 
been highest in communities where conscience and hope- 
fulness have been most developed.’ It further shows 
that these have been most developed in communities 
having most faith in a Moral Ruler of the universe, to 
whom mankind are responsible, and in whom they can 
trust.2 Yet further: no community without belief in 
revelation has ever believed in such a Ruler. 

If we now turn to the question of revelation we find at 
least two communications, one through Moses and a later 
one through Jesus, which claim to be from God, and the 
evidence for which, internal or external, claims respect- 
ful attention. The one through Moses is so buried in a 
remote antiquity as to furnish us with little or no exter- 
nal evidence save what we find in the Old Testament and 
in the influence which Judaism exercised on Greek civ- 
ilization. The other, through Jesus, is at a date when 





1 See Judaism at Rome, pp. 364, 867 - 371, 382 - 386. 
2 See Judaism, pp. 367, 370, 386. 


iv PREFACE. 


external evidence, direct or indirect, is more abundant 
and permits more thorough scrutiny. 

Our knowledge of Jesus and his teaching rests chiefly 
on the genuineness and trustworthiness of four records 
termed Gospels. The direct evidence for their genuine- 
ness has been repeatedly given. The following work 
is an effort to present some of the indirect evidence. 

There are individuals who in a question of this kind 
reject any evidence for what is supernatural. Some do 
this heedlessly because indifferent to the subject ; some 
do it impatiently from antagonism to what they deem 
human credulity ; others who appreciate the subject find 
themselves unable to credit an interruption to the laws of 
nature. For these last mentioned a suggestion is placed 
in the note.® 

In the Appendix various fraudulent works by Chris- 
tians are given in Notes A to K inclusive. In these no 





8 No fact can be better established than that the earth at no compara- 
tively remote period was uninhabited by mankind. They now live upon 
it, and it is obvious from geology that they originally were, as now, dis- 
tinct from, and independent of, any known animal. When the first 
human pair, or pairs, came into existence, it could not have been as help- 
less infants. They must have had capacity to care for themselves. This 
formation of two or more mature human beings, destitute of parents, 
must unquestionably have taken place. No recorded human experience 
has witnessed such an event, nor is there any natural law to which it can 
be referred. Yet this fact, though obviously a miracle, is one which it 
seems impossible to reject. Does not a consideration of it render easy 
the supposition that the Being who formed man would interpose for his 
education ? 


PREFACE. v 


miracles are attributed to Jesus except those found in our 
Gospels. This claims especial attention in the earliest 
of them, the Acts of Pilate, wherein §§ 8, 9, should be 
studied. The inference is fair that in the first half, or 
perhaps in the first quarter, of the second century, the 
history of Jesus was so well established that even the 
author of a fraud, anxious to magnify the Master, did not 
venture in this respect to vary from it. 

Of these fraudulent works some were translated by the 
author and some are given in extant translations. He 
had intended revising both, except in the Ascension of 
Isaiah, that being from the A®thiopic, of which he is 
ignorant. The condition of his sight has precluded such 
revision. Its absence will not affect the argument, but 
may the interpretation of particular passages. He could 
have wished also further time for research on more than 
one point. Other and more imperative duties, however, 
claim what remains to him of vision. In bringing his 
work to a close he must acknowledge deep indebted- 
ness to Professor Ezra Abbot, of Cambridge, for valuable 
aid. 

MEADVILLE, Pa., July 28, 1879. 





In this third edition there is, aside from minor emen- 
dations, some change of arrangement in Note M, and ad- 
dition to Note R. 


MEADVILLE, Pa., July 31, 1882. 


























> de eS ey 





Le 
ret 





valeting 8" 


™ hy 
ef 





INTRODUCTION 


I. 
Il. 


III. 


II. 


IV. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


—ooo—— 


CHAPTER I. 


CONTROVERSIAL WANTS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. 
Section 


These called for J ewish or Heathen Records of Jesus . 
They occasion Pseudo-Heathen and Jewish Documents 
Class 1. Pseudo-Records concerning Jesus - 
‘* 9. Pseudo-Records concerning Christians 
‘© 3. Pseudo-Predictions - 
‘6 4, Pseudo-Teaching - + + + + * © * © *& 


Alleged Uncanonical Gospels. - . - + -+ + © = 


CHAPTER II. 


CONTROVERSIES. 


Between Jewish and Gentile Christians .... . 
Between Jews and Christians. . . .... +6 - 
1. The Ceremonial Law . 
2. The Messiahship of Jesus 
Between Heathens and Christians 
1. Concerning God. Whether but One? Did He create the 
Universe ? Was He Corporeal? What was his form ? 
Did He take Interest in Human Morality ? 
2. Concerning Jesus. His Divine Mission proved by (1) Old 
- Testament Predictions, (2) Pseudo-Heathen Records, 
and (3) Character of his Teachings - 


8. Concerning Heathen Deities - 

4. <8 Idolatry - + +--+» + Tine: Mw 
5 Antiquity of Christianity and Heathenism + 
6. x Public Calamities - - + + + © «© »® 
Y Ns Creationof Man- + + + + *© # # @ 


Controversy between Catholics and Gnostics. . - - 


Page 


. Xiil 


Vill TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER III. 


OPINIONS OF CHRISTIANS. 


Section 
I. Concerning Heathen Deities . 
ate Ge Idolatry : 
III. Re Christ’s Mission to the Gray ae 
ly. sis Resurrection of the Flesh . 
V. te the Millennium . : 
VI. es Restoration of Jerusalem . 
VII. ay Rome’s Destruction . 
VIII. as Beliar, or Antichrist 
IX. 4 Nero’s Return ; 
X. 26 Conflagration of the World : 
XI. Re God devoid of Name 
XII. ie Old Testament Predictions 5 we 
XIII. 4 Jesus as Deity of the Old Testament . 
XIV. 8 the Personal Appearance of Jesus . 


CHAPTER IV. 


CHRISTIAN CUSTOMS. 
I. The Sabbath . ; 
II. Sunday as a Day of Religious Gatherings : 
III. Eating of Blood . : 
IV. Baptism ; 
V. The Lord’s Sareer ‘ 


CHAPTER V. 


DESIGNATIONS FOR GOD . 


CHAPTER VI. 


TERMS APPLIED TO CHRISTIANS. 
I. ’AaeBeis, Unbelievers 
II. Atheists . 
III. Christians . 
IV. Third Race 


Page 


51 


II. 


- TABLE OF CONTENTS, 


CHAPTER VII. 


TERMS USED BY CHRISTIANS. 


> U ? , 
AoeBns, ao€Beva, Gvopos, avouia 


. SeBopevos, PoBovpevos 


EvoeBewa, evoeBns . 
GcoceBeva, OeooeBns - 


*AdeAgoi, E€vor, mavres 


Aixato, Just Men. 


. desus Christ 


CHAPTER VIII. 
MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS. 


Public Games. 
Slavery . 

Two Wars . 
Philosophy . 
Dress 


. Origin of Evil ; 
. Sibylla, Bacis, Hystaspes . 
. Prediction and Inspiration 


Spurious Converts ‘ 
Chronology and Divisions of Time . 


Temporary Disuse of the Words Jesus and Chr ist 


Natural Science . 
Literary Heathens . 
Persecutions . 


CHAPTER IX. 


ROMAN POLITICS. 
Emperors . 


Political Personages i 
Contest with Greek Culture . 


79 
81 
81 


> me TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER X. 


SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. ... ..- 8d 


CHAPTER XI. 
DID PSEUDO-RECORDS REACT ON THE GOSPELS? . 86 


No.1. Dream of. Pilate’s Wife, Matt.xxvii.19 . - - + » - 87 
““ 9, Pilate washes his Hands, Matt. xxvii, 24,25 - . +. . . 88 
The Dead of former Times arise, Matt. xxvii. 52,53 - - . 88 
The Tomb Sealed and Guarded, Matt. xxvii. 62-66 - . + 88 
The Soldiers Bribed, Matt. xxviii. 11-15 - . - +. +. . 89 
Account of Judas, Matt. xxvii. 3-10 . . + + . . » 89 


2 XP ge 


CHAPTER XII. 
TWO FURTHER QUESTIONS. 


I. Correspondences of Matthew, Mark, and Luke .. . 92 
II. Style of John, the Evangelist . . . ... «. - « « @2 
1. Uses of the word Truth’? 6% % /« | »J0s oan 


2. Combinations of the word ‘‘ Of” - . iS a) ee rn 
8. Walkin darkness . . S03 Ra 
4. Abide in (uévew év) God or Christ: ; 24 (3a 
5. Other uses of “Abide in” ~ 4 4° «) W-\s 8a ne eae 
6. To know God, toknow Christ. . . . 2. 2... QO 
7. ‘To see God, to see Christ isi icc dade tee pa 
8. Lay down life (yuxiv révat). « . 2 sw we ele «88 
9. Combinations of “Hava” =... « + «2 « +» » ee 
10. Overcome (vixdw) the world, the wickedone . . . . 99 
Il. Light (60%): 004.00 ae 4. eee ee ae 
12. Affirmation and negation . . 8: a gt) gee 
13. Antitheses: Not, But (ov«, addé). GS ER ae 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


APPENDIX. 


PART I. — Pseudo-Records concerning Jesus. 


Note 
A. Acts of Pilate 
Prefatory Statement ‘ 
§ 1. Character of Charges caineh i esus 
2. Respect of Pilate and his Attendant for niles 
8. Regard of the Common People for Jesus . 
4. Homage of the Standards to Jesus 
5. Message from Pilate’s wife . : 
6. Answer to Imputation on the Mother of iit 
7. Pilate’s Conviction touching Jesus . 
8. Nicodemus testifies to the Miracles of Jesus . 
9. Those cured testify to the Miracles of Jesus . 
- 10. Effort of Pilate to save Jesus 
11. Crucifixion of Jesus. re 
12. Accompaniments of the Crucifixion 
13. Joseph esteems and buries Jesus . 
14. Heathens testify to the Resurrection . 
15. Jews testify to the Resurrection 
B. Pilate’s Report . . 
§ 1. Longer Latin Form . 
2. Shorter Latin Form. 
8. Greek Form . 
C. Correspondence of ibpsius with Je esus 
D. Letter of Lentulus . . 
E. Interpolations of Josephus 
§ 1. Concerning Christ 
2. Concerning John the Baptist 
8. Concerning James 


PART II. — Pseudo-Records concerning Christians. 


F. Edessene Archives, or Pseudo-Thaddeus 


G. Correspondence opened by Seneca with Paul 


H. Letter of Marcus Antoninus 


Xl 


Page 
105 
107 
108 
109 
110 
113 
114 
115 
118 
121 
123 
125 
128 
132 
134 
138 
140 
1492 
143 
145 
146 
149 
151 
153 
153 
154 
156 


158 
161 
167 


xii TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


PART III. — Pseudo-Predictions. 
Note 


I. Ascension of Isaiah 
J. Sibylline Oracles 


PART IV. — Pseudo-Heathen Teaching. 


K. Hermes Trismegistus, Mercury Thrice Greatest 


PART V.— Various Questions. 


L. Alleged Uncanonical Gospels 
M. Date when Jesus was Deified 
_N. First Two Chapters of Matthew 
O, Publication of Mark’s Gospel so in, Nape 
P, . The Baptismal Formula ..°.. 9% s, ue cus 
Q. The Mission of Jesus 

§ 1. Its main Object 

2. Some Impediments to its Influence . 


Ri The Ministry.“ «secon ee 


INTRODUCTION. 





DurineG the present century opinions have gained more 
or less currency that our Gospels are not documents pre- 
pared by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The views 
advanced by those who distrust their alleged authorship 
may be classified under the following heads. 

1. Our Gospels were composed towards the close of the 
second or beginning of the third century. 

2. They were at the foregoing date selected from a 
number then in circulation whose value was uncertain. 

3. Our Gospels grew until the close of the second cen- 
tury under the hands of Christians, being gradually en- 
larged and interpolated. 

Two extracts on this subject are appended?! and others 
will be found in Note L. footnote 1. 





1 The first volume of Eichhorn’s Introduction to the New Testament 
was published in 1804. Two paragraphs from his TABLE oF CONTENTS 
will give a tolerable insight into his views concerning the Gospels. 

“*Those portions of the life of Jesus which in the Apostolic age were 
deemed important and made the foundation of Christian instruction, 
namely, the noteworthy events from the date of his public appearance as 
Teacher until the complete separation from his disciples after his resur- 
rection, constituted in all probability the contents of the first written 
conceptions of the life of Jesus. 

“This [document] is no longer extant, for the Catholic [canonical ?] 
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke comprise several portions of the 
life of Jesus. Moreover, entirely other Gospels were in use until the end 


X1V - INTRODUCTION. 


It is obvious that, if such opinions were correct, the 
Gospels would be replete with the peculiarities of those 
who formed or added to them. To appreciate this, let us 
imagine that such documents had been formed or inter- 
polated in our own time. If, for instance, during the con- 
test concerning slavery such documents had been devised 
or augmented by the abolitionists, they would unques- 
tionably have attributed to the Master condemnation of 
what they themselves treated as “the sum of human 
villanies.” If, on the other hand, slaveholders had pro- 
duced or interpolated such documents, they would hardly 
have failed to make the Master lay down rules for the 
relation between master and slave. 

If such documents had been formed by advocates of 





of the second century.” — Eichhorn, Linleitung in das Neue Testament, 
1, p. ix. 

Eichhorn, however, attributes the fourth Gospel (Zinlettung, 2, pp. 
131, 132) to the apostle John. 

In 1835, D. FP. Strauss published his Leben Jesu, or Life of Jesus, a 
work of which several editions appeared in Germany, and an English 
translation was published in London and at a later date in New York. 
Of this work the following summary is given in the New Am. Cyclo- 
peedia, 15, p. 131. ‘‘It supposed the existence of Jesus, an exemplary 
and reformatory rabbi of Galilee ; that he lived and died an enthusiastic 
and admired teacher and innovator ; that after his death many marvellous 
incidents concerning him gradually gained currency ; that some of these 
were exaggerations of actual events, and others symbolical forms in which 
his disciples clothed his doctrines and precepts; that these wonderful 
narratives were not designed by single persons, but were the spontaneous 
outgrowth of poetical and philosophical tendencies in the early church ; 
that they circulated orally for half a century or more, being constantly 
magnified and multiplied ; and that from this cluster of myths, this mass 
of legendary and poetical lore, various compilations were then made, of 
which there have come down to us the four canonical and several apoery- 
phal Gospels.” 

Such views as the foregoing, modified to suit the various fancies of 
their advocates, have found a credence explicable only by the general 
lack of acquaintance with early Christian history. 





INTRODUCTION. ~ Xv 


what is termed evangelical theology, does any one sup- 
pose that no word would have been attributed to Jesus 
concerning the vicarious atonement, the alleged fact in 
his history which they deemed the most important? Or 
that, if formed by Roman Catholics, no word would have 
been placed in the Master’s mouth concerning papal or 
ecclesiastical authority ? 

From a former work I subjoin a passage? to which any 





_ 2 “The Gospels — whether adopted earlier or later — were used by the 
early Christians as a history of their Master’s life and teachings, and, 
viewed in this light, as the basis of their own faith. Now it requires but 
a moderate acquaintance with human nature to feel convinced that they 
would not fabricate documents AS THE BASIS OF THEIR FAITH, and yet 
leave their own faith out of them, or at least leave out those points in 
their faith which most interested them. Neither would they select as 
THE BASIS OF THEIR FAITH documents in which their favorite opinions 
nowhere appear, and reject those which contained them, as must have 
been the case if our Gospels were selected from other productions of the 
second century. Nor, if such A BASIS OF FAITH grew by accretion, is it 
credible that not one alone, but successive hands, should have added 
thereto, and never have put their cherished peculiarities into it. 

_ **To suppose a somewhat parallel case, — certainly not a stronger one, 
— let us imagine that each division of Protestants had formed or selected 
for itself a basis of faith, in which none of its peculiarities could be found ; 
that the Heidelberg and Westminster Catechisms, the Confession of 
Augsburg, or the Articles of Dordrecht and those of the Anglican Church, 
had offered no clew to the denominational tenets of their framers. Let 
us suppose that a BASIS OF MORALITY should for a century grow by accre- 
tion under the hands of pro- and anti-slavery parties, with no allusion to 
the subject of their dispute; or that amidst the controversies on the 
person of Christ or the vicarious atonement, the Gospels should have 
grown in a similar way, with no mention of these doctrines. Yet, unless 
my study of early history have deceived me, the aggregate improbability 
of all these suppositions does not exceed that of the idea, that the Gos- 
pels could grow by accretion during a century and a half of various and 
fierce conflicts between the Christians and their opponents, or among 
Christians themselves, with no allusion to their controversies, or to the 
opinions developed by them.” — Belief of the first three Centuries con- 
cerning Christ's Mission to the Underworld, § XXV. 


Xvi INTRODUCTION. 


thoughtful reader can readily add illustrations suggested 
by his own observation. Now it is plain that the early 
Christians, who rode their own hobbies with vehemence, 
and who were engaged in controversies which to them 
seemed vital, would not, while fabricating the Master’s 
history, have made him silent on the very topics to which 
they attributed most importance. Their own views would 
inevitably have been attributed to him. Let the reader, 
while perusing the following work, ask himself whether 
it be credible that the Gospels should have emanated from 
Christians in the second century, while omitting every 
trace of their controversies, of their peculiar opinions 
and phraseology, and with one exception of their cus- 
toms; and not only this, but that they should have been 
ascribed to an authorship which rendered them utterly 
useless to Christian controversialists in the most serious 
contest which they waged. 

Had they even in Apostolic times originated in Gen- 
tile lands, nothing but historical truthfulness could have 
saved them from making Jesus speak on topics upper- 
most with their intended readers, and from introducing 
subjects or phraseology unknown to Palestine.® 





8 <*The new hypothesis according to which these Gospels, with the 
Acts of the Apostles, were put together by unknown authors at the close 
of the first, or in the beginning of the second, century out of older narra- 
tives and increased by many additions, will hardly obtain the assent of 
unprejudiced investigators of history.” —Muenscher, Dogmengeschichte, 
II. § 34 (Vol. 1, pp. 258, 259). Muenscher had given more attention 
to early Christian opinions than any other writer of his time. Moreover, 
the interpolation of Matthew (see pp. 86-89) from a document composed 
in what was then called Hebrew, confirms the uniform statement of early 
Christians that his Gospel was written in that language. This precludes 
any such supposition as that of Eichhorn. 





INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY 


TO THE 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 





CHAPTER I. 
CONTROVERSIAL WANTS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. 


§ 1. These called for Jewish or Heathen Records of Jesus. 


CHRISTIANS, in spreading their Master’s religion, alleged 
that he had been divinely commissioned. In proving 
this to an inquiring and candid mind they could in most 
cases use our Gospel narratives, because the internal evi- 
dence of their truthfulness would suffice. 

In dealing with opponents, or with the indifferent, this 
evidence could not be used, since the Gospels were pro- 
fessedly written by Christians, and this very fact rendered 
them inadmissible as proof of Christian allegation. A 
heathen would naturally say: “Some of your own people 
wrote these books. If you wish me to credit your state- 
ments give me testimony from outside your ranks as to 
their correctness You must not expect me to believe 





1 “You distrust our writings and we distrust yours. We invent [you 
say] false accounts concerning Christ.”” — Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, 1, 57. 
Tertullian likewise, after stating that the rulers and chief men of the 
Jews had extorted from Pilate the crucifixion of Jesus, adds: ‘‘He 
himself had predicted that they would do so. This would be of small 
account if the prophets also had not previously done it.” — Apol. 21 ; 
Opp. p. 22 A, edit. Rigault ; 1, p. 89, edit. Gersdorf. The prediction 
by Jesus rested on Christian testimony ; that of the prophets did not. 
Yet Tertullian may have meant: If you can attribute the prediction 
by Jesus to human sagacity, that by the prophets was too early to permit 
such explanation. Compare on this subject p. 37. 


2 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. L 


your own testimony in behalf of your own assertions.” 
Christians were thus debarred from appeal to their Mas- 
ter’s history in evidence of his supernatural mission.? 
They could cite moral teachings from the Gospels as 
approving themselves to the judgment, but this was all. 
Had the Gospels been fabricated for controversial pur- 
poses, or with dishonest intent, or by persons subsequent 
to the Apostles, they would inevitably have been ascribed 
to heathen or Jewish, not to Christian, authors. 





2 Christians, by their inability to cite the Gospels as evidence, were, 
when dealing not with right-minded inquirers, but with opponents or | 
with the captious, debarred almost entirely from appealing to their Mas- 
ter’s miracles, The true cause for this seems to have been overlooked by 
all writers, many of whom have supposed that it was due to their under- 
rating the argument from miracles. The following is a concise state- 
ment of the conclusion to which many modern scholars have arrived. 
‘‘Of the evidence from miracles he (Justin) scarcely takes any notice. 
. . . Miracles were regarded as of no rare occurrence, and they were sup- 
posed to be wrought by magical arts. Christianity might, then, have 
the support of miracles ; but this support would be regarded as of trifling 
importance by those who were believers in the reality of charms and sor- 
cery. The miracle might be admitted ; but the evidence derived from it 
could be invalidated by ascribing it to the effects of magic, That the 
early Fathers and Apologists really felt a difficulty of this kind, there 
can be no doubt.” —Lamson, Church of the First Three Centuries, p. 39. 

The insufficiency of this explanation is obvious from the following con- 
siderations, 

1. In the Pseudo-Heathen and Pseudo-Jewish records concerning Jesus 
which Christians fabricated, an important place is given to miracles. 
2. Such Christians as trusted to, or were willing to use, these records, or 
who thought by the aid of prophecy to prove the statements of the Gos- 
pels, show no hesitation in appealing either to their Master’s miracles 
or to those connected with his history. Justin Martyr says: ‘‘ As to 
the prediction that our Christ should heal all diseases and wake the 
dead, hear what was said. It is asfollows. ‘ At his appearing the lame 
shall leap as a deer ; the tongue of the dumb shall speak distinctly ; the 
blind shall see ; the lepers be cleansed ; the dead shall rise and walk 
about.’ And that he did these things you can learn from the Acts pre- 
pared under Pontius Pilate.” — Apol. 1,48; Opp.1,232C. Tertullian 
mentions the darkness at the crucifixion as miraculous. He says that it 


§ 2.] PSEUDO-JEWISH AND HEATHEN DOCUMENTS. 3 


§ 2. They occasion Pseudo-Heathen and Pseudo-Jewish 
Documents. 


The average morality of Christians much exceeded 
that of heathens? Yet Christianity numbered among 
its adherents some who were unprincipled, or weak-princi- 
pled. The number of these was comparatively small so 
long as Christians were in a decided minority, and could 
offer to converts neither place nor profit in a worldly 
sense. Yet a hundred and twenty years after Jesus 
taught, that is about A. D. 150, we find that some one 
had already supplied by fraud the want most annoying to 
their controversialists, namely, the lack of heathen testi- 
mony to the facts of their Master’s life. At that date we 
find a document called the Acts or PILATE, and still later 
a professed LETTER FROM PILATE to Tiberius. Each of 
these documents is mentioned by but one writer during 
the first three centuries. Probably the chief use made 
of them and of subsequent forgeries was in the fourth 
century, when the two political parties which advocated 





had been foretold, and tells the heathens, ‘‘ You have, recorded in your 
archives, that accident to the world. ... Pilate . . . announced at 
that time all those things concerning Christ to Tiberius.” — Apol. 21; Opp. 
22 BC, edit. Rigault ; 1, pp. 89, 90, edit. Gersdorf. Compare fuller 
statement in Judaism, p. 442. 3. Christians appealed to their own 
miracles. Justin says : ‘‘ Many of our Christian men, adjuring in the 
name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have 
healed and do now heal many possessed by demons throughout the world 
and in your city, [persons] who had not been healed by other exorcists 
and enchanters and physicians.” — Apol. 2, 6; Opp. 1, 296-298. See 
also Dial. 11, cited in Note P, footnote 7, and compare in Underworld 
Mission, p. 78 ; 3d edit. pp. 74—75, the vehement challenge of Tertul- 
lian to the heathens, that they should test this power of the Christians. 
4, Christian apologists, from the middle of the second to the middle of 
the third century, though in arguing with heathens they laid extrava- 
gant stress on predictions, yet laid none on those by their Master any 
more than on his miracles. 

8 By heathens must not be understood the large, though in the second 
century decreasing, class of Gentile Monotheists a adhered to Judaism 
rather than to Christianity. 


4 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [oH. 1 


Christianity and Heathenism were nearly equal in 
strength. Before this date Christians had fewer of the 
unprincipled in their ranks, and fewer opportunities, 
even when so disposed, to give currency to any forgery in 
their own favor. Subsequently to the fourth century, 
when Christianity had the upper hand, and when strife 
was solely or chiefly between sections of its own follow- 
ers, the authority of saints and martyrs outweighed that 
of heathens. Later forgeries were in the name of Chris- 
tian leaders, and even the forgeries which already existed 
were correspondingly altered ; so that the “Acts of Pilate” 
became the “Gospel of Nicodemus,” while the “ Letters 
of ABGARUS and Christ” became the “ Letters of CHRIST 
and Abgarus”; those of Seneca and Paul being headed 
“ Letters of PAUL and Seneca.” 

The Pseudo- Heathen and Pseudo -Jewish documents 
fabricated by Christians may be classified under four 
heads. 


CLass 1. Pseudo-Records concerning Jesus. 


The most important of these was entitled AcTs OF 
PrmaTE. It professed to record the trial of Jesus before 
Pilate. During this trial, the persons cured by Jesus are 
represented as testifying to their cure. These miracles 
were thus attested, not by Christian writers who could be 
suspected of partiality, but by the records of a Roman 
court. The varying localities in which this document 
was used, the various prejudices to which it needed 
accommodation, and the various objections which it had 
to parry, caused alteration and re-alteration of its head- 
ing, as can be seen by appended quotations from various 
MSS.* Copies of this document from two different texts 
will be found in the Appendix, Note A. 





* In the Codex Monacensis CXCII. (designated by Thilo as Monae. A.) 
the title reads, ‘* Record of the things done to our Lord Jesus Christ, under 
Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea, — committed to writing in Hebrew by 
Nicodemus, ruler of the Synagogue of the Jews.’ — Thilo, Cod. Apoe. 
p. CXXVIII. 

The Codex Venetus bears for a heading, ‘‘ Narrative concerning the 


§ 2.] PSEUDO-RECORDS CONCERNING JESUS. 5 
— 


_ Next after the above the most important fraud was.a 
reputed Lerrer or Report oF PILATE to Tiberius. This 





estimable suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ and concerning his holy 
resurrection, written by a Jew named Enneus, which Nicodemus the 
Roman Toparch translated from the Hebrew language into the Romaic 
[that is, the common Greek] dialect.” — Thilo, Cod. Apoc. p. CXXVI, 
compared with statement on p. cxxrx, ll. 11,12. The word estimable 
is doubtless a somewhat late addition to the title, not earlier probably 
than the fourth century. 

The Latin manuscript Codex Parisiensis, 1652, has prefixed to it the 
following : ‘‘ In the name of the Lord. [Here] begins the Book concern- 
ing the deeds of our Lord [the] Savior ; by Emaus, the Hebrew, post, 
after [or, according to] Nicodemus.” — Thilo, Cod. Apoc. p. cXxxIXx. ° 

Paris A bears the simple heading, ‘‘ Records concerning our Lord 
Jesus Christ, which were made under Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea.” 
— Thilo, pp. cxx1, 489. A prologue to the same manuscript will be found 
further on in this note. 

The preface to Paris D will be found in the Appendix, Note A, at the 
beginning of the document, and should be compared with the fore- 
going. eer 

In the account of Christ’s doings in the Underworld, which was subse- 
quently added to the ‘*‘ Acts,” is a statement that, ‘‘ Joseph and Nico- 
demus immediately announced to the governor all these things which 
were said by the Jews in their Synagogue ; and Pilate himself wrote all 

_ things which were done and said by the Jews concerning Jesus, and de- 
posited all the words [thereof] in the public records of his Pretorium.” — 
Acts of Pilate, Lat. Vers., Thilo, Cod. Apoc. p. 788. This would fairly 
imply that the action of Pilate’s court and the testimony given in it had 
been PREVIOUSLY recorded by himself. 

The heading of Codex B of Pilate’s Epistle blends that document 
with the Acts of Pilate, or implies that Pilate’s letter merely accompanied 
the Memoirs. It reads as follows: ‘‘ Memoirs [of what was done] 
touching our Lord Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate . . . and also 
whatever Nicodemus narrated as done by the Jews and chief priests sub- 
sequently to the crucifixion and suffering of Jesus. This same Nico- 
demus wrote in Hebrew.” — Thilo, Cod. Apoc. pp. 803 n-— 804 n. 

The headings of several manuscripts represent this document as found 
at a later date in the Pretorium. In one (Thilo, Cod. Apoc. pp. CXLI, 
CXL11) the person finding it is not mentioned. In another (Thilo, Cod. 
Apoc. p. CXXXv) he is said to be the Emperor Theodosius (A. D. 379 - 
395). In some this emperor is said to have found the account in 


6 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. 1. 


seems to have been less used than the preceding. It will 
hereafter be given in three different forms and from four 
different texts. See Appendix, Note B. 

Yet another, first mentioned in the fourth century, is 
the CORRESPONDENCE OF ABGARUS WITH CHRIST, given in 
the Appendix, Note C. — 

One more document attributed to a heathen is the Lrt- 
TER OF LENTULUS, not mentioned by any ancient writer. 
It resembles the preceding documents in nothing save its 
alleged heathen origin. They were intended chiefly to 
reproduce the facts of the Gospels. This letter was an 
effort to counteract the results of defective judgment 
and interpretation among Christians. It will be found 
in the Appendix, Note D. 

An INTERPOLATION OF JOSEPHUS testifying to facts in 
the life of Jesus will be given in the Appendix, Note E. 





Hebrew (Thilo, Cod. Apoc. p. CXXXIV, note 133, and p. cxuviI, Il. 1, 2), 
which would imply that it had been written by another hand and merely 
deposited in the public archives by Pilate. 

The prologue of Paris A says that, ‘‘I Ananias [now] pretorian pre- 
fect, learned in the Law, according to the divine Scriptures, recognized 
our Lord Jesus Christ, coming to him by faith and being deemed worthy 
of his holy baptism. Searching the records made at that time, in the 
days of our master Jesus Christ, which the Jews laid away in the time 
of Pilate, I found these records in the Hebrew language — translating 
them also by the grace of God into Greek, that they may be recognized 
by all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ —in the seven- 
teenth year of the reign of our master Flavius Theodosius [A. D. 395], 
the sixth of Flavius Valentinianus, the ninth of the Indiction [a treas- 
ury cycle, according to Pierer’s Universal Lexicon, of fifteen years]. All 
you who read copy into other books.” — Thilo, pp. 490, 492. 

A Preface to the Latin MS. Cod. Paris. [No.] 1652 (Thilo, pp. 491, 
493, 495) agrees in outline, though not in detail, with the foregoing 
Prologue. Its writer calls himself ‘‘ Emaus, a Hebrew, a teacher of the 
law among the Hebrews,” but does not claim official capacity as prefect 
or otherwise. 

Additional variations in the heading or Prologue are cited by Thilo ; 
but the foregoing will indicate the difficulties and perplexities which 
constantly presented themselves to those who were propagating a fraudu- 
lent narrative. 


§ 3.] ALLEGED UNCANONICAL GOSPELS. 7 


CLAss 2. Pseudo-Records concerning Christians. 


In the fourth century Eusebius mentions a document 
of which, under the heading EDESSENE ARCHIVES OR 
PSEUDO-THADDEUS, an account will be found in the Ap- 
pendix, Note F. It testifies to miracles of Thaddeus. 

An alleged CORRESPONDENCE OF SENECA WITH PAUL, 
manifesting his respect for the latter, has come down to 
us, for which see Appendix, Note G. 

An alleged Letter ofr Marcus ANTONINUS testifying 
to the miraculous result of prayer by a Christian legion 
will be given in the Appendix, Note H. 


Cuass 3. Pseudo-Predictions. 


In the second century Christians had a mania for find- 
ing predictions concerning Jesus in the Old Testament.® 
Inability to make these plain to others prompted some- 
what later a forgery called the ASCENSION oF ISAIAH, 
wherein the prophet is made to speak more plainly than 
in his genuine writings. It is described in Note I. 

PREDICTIONS BY SIBYLLA concerning Jesus, quoted or 
mentioned in Note J, were also an effort to fabricate pro- 

phetic evidence. On Hysraspes see Judaism, pp. 459, 
460. 


Cuass 4. Pseudo-Teaching. 


Lactantius quotes views common among Christians 
from Hermes TRISMEGISTUS, “ Mercury Thrice Greatest,” 
concerning which document see Note K. 


§ 3. Alleged Uncanonical Gospels in the Second Century. 


An erroneous supposition exists, that in the second 
century Gospels were afloat, out of which the four now 
in use were formed or selected. To avoid distracting the 
reader's attention this subject is deferred. 





8 See Ch. III. § 12 and Judaism at Rome, pp. 344 - 348, 
6 See Appendix, Note L. 


8 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. 1. 


CHAPTER ILI. 


CONTROVERSIES. 


§ 1. Between Jewish and Gentile Christians, 


In the Apostolic Age, from the moment when Chris- 
tianity numbered Gentiles among its converts, a con- 
troversy sprang up between these and their Judaizing 
brethren. The Gentile Christians were regarded by the 
latter as aspiring to the benefit of God’s promises, while 
shrinking from the burden of his law. The difficulty 
must frequently have amounted to non-intercourse be- 
tween the two schools of Christians, the separation being 
as sharp as if they did not recognize a common master. 
Peter on one occasion visited a Gentile Monotheist. of 
blameless and benevolent life, of whose benevolence the 
Jews received no small share. The object of the visit 
was to communicate Christian truth, yet Peter's Judaiz- 
ing brethren took him sharply to task for so doing. 

Outside of Judea the dissension as to whether Gentile 
Christians must adopt Jewish customs caused the send- 
_ing of a delegation to the Apostles at Jerusalem. Here 
the dispute was animated, but resulted in a decision 
not to require of the Gentile brethren obedience to the 
laws of Moses, though it did require of them obedience — 
to a precept in Genesis,? as also abstinence from meat 
offered to idols and adherence to Jewish and Christian 
views of the relation between the sexes. The omission 





1 “Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised and didsteat with them.” — 
Acts 11, 3. 

2 Acts 15, 7. 

8 See Ch. IV. § 3. 

* Among heathens the view seems to have prevailed, that where there 
was a mutual consent between a man and woman no wrong was done. 
This view can hardly. have been universal among the better class of 
heathens, yet it evidently prevailed to an extent which required an 


§ 1.] CONTROVERSIES : JEWISH WITH GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 9 


of any requirement as to truthfulness, honesty, and other 
items of rectitude is due to the fact doubtless that no 
question was raised concerning these. Both parties were, 
in respect to them, of one mind. 

_ Paul regarded the ceremonial law as not binding, and 
the eating of meat offered to.an idol as a matter of indif- 
ference unless when it might mislead others, or in cases 
where the person who ate deemed it wrong.® He taught 
that Gentiles could become Christians without observ- 
ing circuincision or the sabbath ;® and it is possible that 





express injunction on the subject, an injunction for which Paul would 
have been equally zealous as his more Judaizing brethren. Some of the 
Gentile Christians may have held laxer ideas of morality. 

5 ** Now as touching things offered unto idols. . . . Some with a con- 
viction that the idol is a real being, eat even yet as of something sacri- 
ficed to this being, and their conscience being weak is polluted... . 
We gain nothing by eating and lose nothing by not eating. . . . If any 
one should see you who have [as you think] knowledge, reclining at an 
idol-feast, will not his conscience because of his weakness be emboldened 
to eat idol sacrifices, and your weak brother will be lost as the result of 
your knowledge.” —1 Cor. 8,1-11. ‘‘ Whatever is sold in the mar- 
ket that eat without asking questions for the sake of conscience. .. . 
And if one who is an unbeliever inviteth you to a feast and you choose 
to go, eat whatever is set before you without asking any questions for 
the sake of conscience. But if any one say to you, This has been offered 
in sacrifice to an idol, do not eat of it on account of him that showed you 
this.” —1 Cor. 10, 25-28. Noyes’ trans. ‘‘ Let not him that eateth de- 
spise him who forbears eating ; and let not him who forbears eating judge 
him that eateth : for God hath received him. . . . I know, and am per- 
suaded as a Christian, that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him 
that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. . . . And 
he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not with con- 
viction [of its lawfulness] : for whatsoever is not [done] with confidence 
{in its lawfulness] is sinful.” — Rom. 14, 3, 14, 23. 

6 “For in Christianity neither circumcision availeth anything nor un- 
circumcision.” — Galat. 5, 6; 6,15. ‘*One man esteemeth one day 
above another : another ESTEEMETH EVERY DAY ALIKE. Let every man 
be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Rom.14, 5. ‘‘I went up to 
Jerusalem with Barnabas [more than seventeen years after becoming a 
Christian], taking with me also Titus. I went up for the purpose of 


10 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [oH. IL. 


some of his arguments, if rigidly carried out, might have 
seemed to absolve Jews also from these observances, A 
consequence was that on his last visit to Jerusalem his 
fellow Apostles and more liberal friends feared violence 
towards him at the hands of his Christian but Judaizing 
brethren.? 

In periods of political disturbance which caused more 
than usual alienation between Jews and Gentiles, this 
controversy became very bitter, intensifying the antago- 
nism between the two branches of the Christian commu- 
nity, and increasing the number of localities where this 
antagonism amounted to non-intercourse.® 

The violent advocates of ritual observance may not 
even in Jerusalem have been conscientious observers of 
what they advocated,? yet the control which they exer- 





a disclosure, and I communicated to them the Gospel which I preach 
among the Gentiles, — privately, however, to the more prominent, — that 
I might not run, or have run, in vain. Neither was Titus, a Gentile 
who was with me, compelled to be circumcised ; though [an effort to that 
effect was made] because of false brethren privately introduced, that they 
might spy out our freedom in Christianity for the purpose of enslaving 
us, to whom I did not even for an hour give in.” — Galat. 2, 1-5. 

The words translated, ‘‘for the purpose of a disclosure,” are frequently 
rendered, ‘‘in accordance with a revelation.” A different translation is 
sometimes given also to the remarks concerning Titus ; but the sharpness 
of collision is not affected by any translation. 

7 “* You see, brother, how many myriads of Jewish believers there are, 
and they are all zealots for the Law. But they have been informed that 
you teach all Jews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not 
to circumcise their children, nor to walk after the [Jewish] customs. 
What then is to be done? The multitude will assuredly come together ; 
for they will hear that you have come. Do therefore what we advise 
you. We have four men who have a vow on them. Take these and 
purify yourself with them, and pay the expenses for them, that they may 
shave their heads ; and all will know that those things of which they 
have been informed concerning you are nothing, but. that you yourself 
also walk in observance of the Law.” — Acts 21, 20-24. 

8 See Judaism at Rome, pp. 254, 255, and on 266 the text prefixed to 
note 30. 

9 **Now therefore why do you provoke the anger of God, by putting a 


§2.] CONTROVERSIES: JEWS WITH CHRISTIANS. 11 


-eised is evinced by the fact, that, in a locality outside 
of Judea, not only Peter was temporarily overborne by 
their vehemence, but also Barnabas, who, though a Jew, 
had been born and brought up in a Gentile locality.’ 

Of all this controversy and conflict, not a trace appears 
in the Gospels. Had they, instead of being honest histo- 
ries of earlier events in Judea, been the fancy sketches 
which some have supposed, — had they originated in the 
midst of this struggle, or had they grown by accretion 
under the hands of those who were engaged in the dispute, 
or living among the disputants, it seems morally impossi- 
ble that the Master should not have been made to say one 
word on the subject at issue. 


§ 2. Between Jews and Christians. 


This controversy may be divided into two parts: 1. Was 

the Ceremonial Law essential to salvation? 2. Was Jesus 
the Christ ? 
_ The first of these questions brought out essentially the 
same points and counterpoints as the discussion in the 
preceding section. Christians affirmed that Abel, Enoch, 
Noah, and others had been acceptable to God without 
being cireumcised, and therefore that circumcision could 
not be essential to his approval; that Abraham had been 
acceptable without observing the sabbath, and that its 
observance therefore was not binding.” 





yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we 
were able to bear ?”’ — Acts 15, 10, Noyes’ trans. 

10 *‘ When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, be- 
cause he was to be blamed. For, before the arrival from James of certain 
[Judaizers], he ate with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he 
withdrew, and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. And 
the other Jews dissembled likewise with him ; insomuch that Barnabas 
also was carried away with their dissimulation.” — Galat. 2, 11-13. 

1 “We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. 
At what date was it so reckoned? After he was circumcised ? or when 
he was yet uncircumcised? It was . . . while he was uncircumcised.” — 
Rom. 4, 9, 10. The intended inference is that if Abraham did not need 
circumcision as a means of becoming acceptable to God, neither do other 


12 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [oH. 1. 


The most animated opponents of the Jews were the 
semi-Jewish Christians, who, because they shared largely 





men. ‘Let no one then call you to account about food or drink, or a 
feast-day, or a new moon, or sabbaths ; which are a shadow of the things 
to come.” — Coloss. 2, 16, 17, Noyes’ trans. ‘* Why do you turn to the 
weak and beggarly rudiments whereunto you desire again to be in bond- 
age ? You observe DAys and months.” — Gal. 4, 9, 10. The meaning is 
made plain by the following. ‘‘ The new moon and sABBATHS I cannot 
away with.” —Is.1, 13. Compare note 6. 

Justin Martyr argues from the predecessors of Abraham against cir- 
cumcision and from the predecessors of Moses against sabbath-keeping. 
‘‘Have you any other blame to lay against us, my friends . . . except 
that we do not like your ancestors circumcise our flesh, nor like you keep 
sabbaths ovdé ds tues caBBarifwuer. ... This is what we wonder at, said 
Trypho . . . that you who profess edceBSetv to monotheize practically 
. . . differ IN NOTHING from the Gentiles as to your way of life in that 
you observe neither feasts nor sabbaths.” — Dial. 10, ‘‘ The law given 
in Horeb [Justin answers] is antiquated and concerned you only.”— 
Dial. 11, Further on he argues, ‘‘ It was on account of your wickedness 
and that of your fathers, as I before said, that God commanded you to 
observe the sabbath for a sign.” — Dial. 21. ‘* Observe the material uni- 
verse, it is not idle, neither does it keep sabbaths. Remain as you were 
born ; for if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, nor of 
sabbath-keeping and feasts and offerings before Moses, neither is there 
now.” — Dial. 23. ‘*Trypho answered, Why do you select what you 
please from the prophetical writings and make no mention of the express 
injunctions to keep the sabbath ?. . . Because [says Justin] I supposed 
that you did and do understand that if you are commanded throughout 
all the prophets to observe these same things which Moses commanded, 
it is on account of your hardness of heart and thanklessness. . . . Else as 
regards the Just Men, who were well pleasing to God, prior to the time 
of Moses and Abraham, and who neither observed circumcision nor the 
sabbath ; why did he not teach THEM to observe these things ?” — Dial. 
27, Compare Ch. VII. § 6. ‘‘ As therefore circumcision took its rise 
from Abraham, and the sabbath and the offerings and the feasts from 
Moses, and were instituted, as has been proved, because of the hardness 
of your people’s heart ; so it is necessary they should cease.” — Dial. 43. 
**Tf any one should ask you, seeing that Enoch and Noah and their 
children and several others, who were neither circumcised nor observed 
sabbaths, did please God, what can be the reason why God after so 
many generations, by other leaders and the promulgation of other laws, 


§ 2.] | CONTROVERSIES: JEWS WITH CHRISTIANS. 13 


in Jewish views, were the more anxious to make promi- 
nent those points in which they differed from them. 

Of all this acrimonious discussion nothing appears in 
the Gospels. None of the points made prominent by it 
are explained or enforced by the Master. 

In behalf of the second position, that Jesus was the 





did -vouchsafe to justify the posterity of Abraham until Moses by cir- 
cumcision and those that succeeded Moses by circumcision and other 
precepts, that is the sabbath and sacrifices and ashes and offerings .. . 
unless you can prove that it was asI said before, lest you should give 
yourselves up to idolatry and be unmindful of the true God. . . unless 
this be the case, God will be calumniated with not having the knowledge 
of future events, and with acting partially and inconsistently because he 
did not teach all men [compare Ch. VII. § 5] to know and practise the 
same just and righteous laws.” — Dial. 92. 

** But that God gave circumcision not as a fulfilment of righteousness, 
but for a sign that the race of Abraham might continue discernible, we 
learn from Scripture itself. . . . And that man was not justified by these, 
but that they were given to the people as a sign is evident, because 
Abraham himself, without circumcision and without observance of sab- 
baths, believed God ; and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, and 
he was called the friend of God. But Lot also, without circumcision, 
was led out from Sodom obtaining the salvation which is from God. Also 
Noah, pleasing God when uncircumcised, received the world’s expanse in 
its second age. But Enoch also, pleasing God without circumcision, per- 
formed, though only a man, a mission [see Judaism, p. 486, note 7] to an- 
gels. . . . But all the remaining multitude also of those who were just before 
Abraham, and of those patriarchs who were before Moses, were accounted 
just without the before-mentioned [observance of circumcision and sab- 
bath] and without the Mosaic Law.” — Irenzeus, cont. Heres. 4, 16, 1, 2. 

The author of the Epistle to Diognetus, in the early part of the 
third century says of the Jews: ‘‘ But as to their horror of certain 
meats, and their superstition concerning sabbaths and their boasting 
about circumcision, and their pretended observation of fasts and new 
moons, which are all of them ridiculous and not worth speaking of, I [do 
not] deem that you need instruction from me. For what right has any 
one to accept some of the things created by God for man’s use as if they 
were properly created, and to refuse others as useless and superfluous ? 
and what rmprery is there not in falsely charging God with prohibiting 
the performance of good on the sabbath ?” —c. 4, Cp. Note A. § 1. 

Other quotations bearing on this subject will be found in Ch. IV. § 1. 


14 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. m1. 


Messiah, the arguments were almost exclusively based 
upon interpretations, or misinterpretations, or misapplica- 
tions of passages in the Old Testament, a subject to which 
we shall hereafter return.” 


§ 3. Between Heathens and Christians. 


1. A prime point of this controversy was the question 
whether there were but one God,!® or whether there were 
many. This was blended with the question whether the 
universe had been created, or at least formed into its 
present shape, by the Deity, or whether the deities were 
of subsequent origin to the universe. If the universe had 
been created or formed by Divine power, then the har- 
mony of its design implied that it was the work of one 
mind, not of many. The question as to the existence 
of but one God had been fiercely debated before the 
appearance of Christianity, and it is plain, from the 
persecution of Monotheists and of Christians subse- 





12 See Ch. III. §12. . 

18 *¢ We Christians are simply adorers of the Highest King and Ruler 
with Christ as our magistro, teacher.” — Arnobius, 1, 27. Theophilus 
argues that if a ship be seen steering steadily to its harbor, the presence 
of a pilot on board who guides her becomes obvious. ‘‘ Thus we are 
compelled to perceive that God isa pilot of the universe.” — Ad Autol. 
1,5; Opp. p. 16 B, edit. Otto; p. 340 D E, edit. Maran. Compare the 
application to God of the term Pilot by Jews and Stoics in Judaism, 
p- 51. 

14 Prosecutions for unbelief were a favorite resort of the Roman aris- 
tocracy against their opponents, subsequently at least to A. D. 14, if not 
earlier. A strong impetus was given to these accusations after the patri- 
cian rebellion of October 18, A. D. 31. During this rebellion the aris- 
tocracy had murdered many prominent men of the popular party. When 
prosecuted by relatives of the murdered individuals they defended them- 
selves by counter charges of unbelief (see Judaism at Rome, pp. 8, 534) ; 
and the professional prosecutors whom they hired seem in many cases 
to have been paid, not by the individuals who employed them, but from 
the senatorial treasury (Dio Cass. 58, 14, quoted in Judaism, p. 532), an 
indication that the remainder of the senatorial party were making com- 


§ 3.]. CONTROVERSIES: HEATHENS WITH CHRISTIANS. 15 


quently, that this debate had lost none of its earnestness 
or of its acrimony. 

Connected with the question whether there were a 
Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of this world, came 
other queries. Was he corporeal or incorporeal ??® What 





mon cause with them. A Roman consul, wealthy and cultured, a near 
friend of the elder Pliny and relative of Caligula, was kept for seven 
years in his house by charges of unbelief. See Judaism, p. 211, note 85. 
At the date of this event (A. D. 31-387) Christianity can hardly have 
reached Rome, but its adherents equally with other Monotheists must 
have been exposed to these prosecutions from the moment that they 
obtained foothold in the imperial city. 
» } Already in B.C. 76, when a monotheistic document imposed on the 
Roman Senate had given a new impetus to discussion, Cicero represents 
himself as present where one friend ridicules and burlesques monotheism 
while another, who had under the guise of stoicism upheld it, insists on 
another discussion of the subject, since it is pro aris et focis, ‘‘for the 
dearest of human possessions,” — Cicero, de Nat. Deor. 3, (40), 94 
16 Heathens believed in corporeal gods. Tatian says of the heathens, 
**Some hold God to be corporeal, but I deem him incorporeal.” — Orat. 
25; p. 104 C, edit. Otto; p. 265 B, edit. Maran. When monotheistic 
discussion in B. C. 76 received an impulse at Rome (see Judaism, p. 142), 
‘Cicero makes his speaker on the heathen side allege that the existence 
- of a god without a body intelligi non potest, ‘‘ cannot be understood, for 
he must NECESSARILY lack perception, understanding, pleasure.” — De 
Nat. Deorum, 1, (12), 30. ‘*‘ For you know no pleasure which does not 
originate from the body.” — De Nat. Deorum, 1, (39), 111.. And so late 
as the tenth century we find the statement of one who had listened to an 
argument that God was a spirit. ‘‘ It appears that God is nothing at all, 
since he has no head, no eyes.” — Mosheim, £cc, Hist. 2, p. 137, note 6, 
by Murdock. If God pervaded the universe, as Monotheists and Stoics 
believed, the question whether he were corporeal involved the question 
whether two bodies could coexist in the same space. An opinion of 
the Stoics. (Philosophumena, 1, 21) quoted in Judaism, p. 44, may have 
had either the bearing there suggested on the resurrection, or may have 
been an affirmation that God, since he pervaded the universe, was not 
material but spiritual. Compare also (in Appendix, Note M, footnote 
21) the argument of Athenagoras against the existence of two or more 
(independent ?) gods, part of which is perhaps based on an assumption 
of their corporeal character. 


16 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cu. 1. 


was his form?!” Did he*—the question was vital — 
take interest in human morality ?% 

Of this debate nothing appears in the Gospels. The 
recognition of one God is assumed. The teacher of Chris- 
tianity supplies his apostles with no arguments on the 
subject. 

2. The second point to be proved was that Jesus had 
been authorized and commissioned by the Supreme Be- 
ing. Christians, as already explained, could not on this 
point appeal to their Gospels except when dealing with 
right-minded inquirers. They had, however, in the char- 
acter of their Master's religion a great advantage, for in 
the countries where monotheism had spread there was 
a large number of right-minded men, who, without being 
inquirers or opponents, were likely to side with morality 
and worthy conceptions of God, as against the follies and 
immoralities of heathenism. When the writer of the 
Oratio ad Greecos affirmed (c. 5), “ Our commander does not 
wish strength of body, nor beauty of form, nor vaunt- 
ing of noble birth, but a pure soul walled around with 
righteousness,” he must have found many who would at 
least speak respectfully of such as aimed in this direction, 
and who would defend them with more or less decision 
against attacks by the unworthy. 

In dealing with opponents, Christians appealed to the 





17 Cicero makes his heathen speaker argue (see Judaism, Ch. III. note 
11) for the human form of gods as the most excellent with which we are 
acquainted. The Stoics held that he was spherical. The two positions 
on which this belief rested —namely, that the universe was spherical and 
that God pervaded it — were borrowed from Monotheists. It is possible 
also that some Monotheists believed that God was spherical in form, and 
that their anticipations of future likeness to God gave rise to a belief 
that the resurrection body would be spherical. See belief of Origenian 
monks mentioned in Huet’s Origeniana, 2, 2, 9; Origen’s Works, edit. 
Lommatzsch, 23, pp. 148-150; edit. de la Rue, 4, (Appendix) pp. 
200 — 215. 

Heathens treated a spherical God as necessarily DEVOID OF HEAD, and 
therefore of intelligence. See Judaism, p. 42, note 4. 

8 See Ch. V. note 5, and Judaism, ce. II. note 3, X. note 53. 





§ 8.] CONTROVERSIES: HEATHENS WITH CHRISTIANS. 17 


Old Testament? for predictions of certain facts in their 
Master's life which heathens admitted, or which they 
were not in position to deny, and argued or assumed that, 
because these facts had been predicted, a Divine provision 
had been made for their Master’s ministry, a provision 
which would not have been made unless he had been 
commissioned by God.?° 

In Rome, however, we find two appeals by Justin Mar- 
tyr to the Acts of Pilate, and in Africa one by Tertullian 
to Pilate’s Report, in proof of facts in the Master’s life. 
Indirect evidence implies that both documents must have 
been more used in Syria and Asia Minor than at the 
West.24 The letter of Abgarus to Christ containing sim- 
ilar spurious evidence must also have found some cur- 
rency at the East.” 

The discussion, like many others in which the feelings 
of disputants are excited, was largely diverted to side 
issues. 

3. A third point, which perhaps occupied more space 
and excited more feeling than any other, was concerning 
the heathen deities or demons. Christians were brought 
into constant collision with the worship of these beings, 
and were tortured and put to death because of not 
worshipping them. Many, instead of discrediting their 
existence, seem to have been equally persuaded of it as 
the heathens themselves. They regarded them as super- 





19 The author of the Cohortatio ad Grzecos (close of ch. 13) offers to 
take a copy from the Jewish synagogue, so that no suspicion of Christian 
interpolation could find place. Theophilus says: ‘‘ All the prophets 
spoke things harmonious and accordant with each other, and proclaimed 
beforehand what should happen to the whole world. The issue of the 
predicted and now accomplished events can teach the lovers of learning, 
or rather the lovers of truth, that the things predicted through them [the 
prophets] concerning ages and times before the flood, from the time 
when the world was created until now, are true.” —Ad Autol. 3, 17; 
Opp. p. 230, edit. Otto ; pp. 390-391, edit. Maran. 

2 See Ch. III. § 12. 

21 See Appendix, Notes A and B. 

22 See Appendix, Note C. 


18 | “INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. If 


natural, malicious beings who had got mankind into their 
power, and who were the authors of all the evil in the 
world.”8 

Heathens charged the Christians with having offended 
these gods, and having thereby prompted them to. indhiet 
miseries on mankind 

4. Closely connected with the foregoing was the tail 
ject of idolatry, the views of which will be hereafter 
given.” 

5. The comparative antiquity of Christianity and hea- 
thenism was not a little debated. The points involved 
in this part of the discussion were various and in some 
cases deserving of but little attention.” In other cases 
the question was handled with more judgment. Arno- 
bius (adv. Gent. 2,72) takes ground that the antiquity 
of God was in no wise affected by the date at which men 
began to show him due homage. Theophilus alleges 
the superior antiquity of Christianity by treating Moses 
as a part of it.?7 





28 See Ch. III. § 1. 

24 «7 have found some who were very wise in their own opinion, “who 
raved and raged and declared as if under the prompting of an oracle that 
since the Christians existed in the world the earth was perishing and the 
human race was attacked by evils of manifold kinds ; that the gods 
themselves, the usual rites being neglected wherewith they were wont to 
inspect our affairs, had been driven away from the earth.” ee 
adv. Gentes, 1, 1. 

25 See Ch. III. § 2. 

2% Thus we find a statement (Lactantius, 2, 14; Vol. 1, col. 327 A) 
that Bacchus cannot have invented the vine, since Noah’s drunkenness 
(Gen. 9, 21) implies that he, an older than Bacchus, was acquainted with 
wine. The fact that he and his family alone survived the flood was 
regarded as proving him to be older than the heathen deities. 

27 «« Our prophet and servant of God, Moses, narrating concerning the 
origin of the world, related in what manner the flood took place over the 
earth.” — Theophilus, ad Autol. 3 18; Opp. pp. 230-232 A, edit. 
Otto ; p. 891 B, edit. Maran. After giving the sequence of Egyptian 
kings from the time of Moses, Theophilus adds : ‘‘ So that the Hebrews 
are shown to be older than the cities celebrated among the Egyptians, 


§ 3.] CONTROVERSIES : HEATHENS. WITH CHRISTIANS. 19 


- Again: Moses was recognized as. older than Plato or 
Socrates, and from Moses the latter were by many (com- 
pare Ch. VIII. note 14) affirmed to have obtained their 
ideas. The Sibylline verses were alleged to be older 
than even Homer, and on this point the Christians had a 
controversial advantage; for the Roman Senate had de- 
posited in its archives as an authoritative document the 
professed work of Sibylla, which predicted that Homer 
would copy from her, and which also predicted that 
fineas, a Monotheist; would found the Latin kingdom, 
thus making monotheism the original religion of Italy 
and the gods of Rome a subsequent invention. 

6. Heathens charged Christians that by their offences 
they caused the gods to inflict manifold plagues on man- 
kind. To this, the answers were various. Some, without 
denying the allegation, or at: least without denying the 
whole of it, argued that this showed the contemptible 
character of the gods.” Others alleged. that the earth 
was growing old, and could not be so fruitful in its old 
age as in its youth. One writer evinced from history 
that the calamities to which heathens referred were equally: 





who [the Hebrews] are OUR FOREFATHERS, from whom also we have the 
sacred books, which are older than all [other] compositions, as we have 
previously said.” — Ad Autol. 3,20; Opp. pp. 238-240 C D, edit. Otto ; 
p. 392 D, edit. Maran. 

. 8 See note 24. 

_ 29 * Although the whole host of demons and spirits of that class be sub- 
ject to us, yet like wicked slaves they mingle contumacy with fear, and 
delight to injure those whom they otherwise fear, since fear inspires 
hatred ; . . . those whom they war against at a distance, they beseech 
when near.” — Tertullian, Apol. 27. See also views.of Justin, as given 
by Kaye, in Ch. III. note 2. 

- 8 The belief that the earth was growing old and in various ways de- 
generate seems to have been held by Jews before the Christian era, from 
whom it was copied by the Stoics. See Judaism at Rome, p. 57, note 
50. In a Jewish work of the second century we are told: ‘‘Since 
greater evils than those which thou hast now seen happen, shall happen 
hereafter. For in proportion as the world grows old and infirm, inthe 
same proportion shall the calamities of those, who dwell therein, be mul- 
tiplied.”” — 2 Esdras, Laurence’s Vers. 14, 15, 16; cp. com. vers. 16; 17. 


20 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. I. 


prevalent before as since the appearance of Christianity ;*! 
another appeals to the Sibylline Oracles (the authority 
which the Roman Senate had recognized) in proof that 
the Supreme God controls such matters; the former calls 
attention to the fact that the gods gave no law to men, 
and asks why, therefore, they should be angry at non- 
obedience.? The same writer tells the heathens that 
their own statements of Divine doings would be a much 
surer reason for Divine anger.** 

7. Heathens did not regard man as created by any of 
their gods. Christians alleged that he had been made by . 
the Supreme Being, or by his Logos, or wisdom, which 
they personified, or by the joint action of both. Theophi- 
lus says (ad Autol. 2,18): “The circumstances attend- 
ing man’s creation exceed [any capacity of] narration.” 
See also in Appendix, Note M, the text prefixed to foot- 
note 17. 

Of all the points raised and discussed in this contro- 
versy not one appears in the Gospels. Considering the 
prominence which they held during the contest, it seems 
impossible that the Gospels, if at that date in course of 
formation, should have borne no traces of them. 


§ 4. Between Catholics and Gnosties. 


The Gnostics were two bodies of Gentile Christians 
originating about A.D. 140, in localities widely distant 
from each other, and of whom each branch was in many 
respects intensely unlike the other. Both these branches 





81 Arnobius, 1, 3, 4. 

82 Theophilus, ad Autol. 2, 3. 

83 «« By these [deities] nothing was ever appointed or sanctioned. .. . 
What justice, therefore, is there that the heavenly gods should for va- 
rious.causes become angry at those to whom they never deigned to show 
themselves, nor gave or laid down any laws?’— Arnobius, 7, 7. 
Compare the statement of Commodianus : ‘‘ You pray to so many gods 
. . . from whom there is not in the [whole] earth a [single] law.” — 
Instruct. 8, ll. 8, 9. 

84 Arnobius, 3, 11. 


§1.] | OPINIONS CONCERNING HEATHEN DEITIES. 21 


of Gnostics held that the Jewish God was a different being 
from the God who sent Christ. With both branches 
the Catholic ** Christians had for more than half a century 
a violent and imbittered contest. 

Of this Gnostic controversy nothing appears in the 
Gospels. Jesus is not made to utter anything touch- 
ing it. 





CHAPTER IIL 
OPINIONS OF CHRISTIANS. 


§ 1. Concerning Heathen Deities. 


So soon as Christianity commenced spreading outside of 
_ Judea it came in contact with heathen belief and customs.! 
Heathens taught the existence of numerous deities, who 
even before the Christian era had by some Jews been 
regarded as devoid of existence, while others deemed 
them to be evil spirits. Some questions as to the light 
in which God was thought to view any worship of these 
deities will be considered in the next section. 





8 See Judaism at Rome, pp. 331-336 ; also the second and third vol- 
umes of Norton’s Genwineness. The Gnostics originated during, or im- 
mediately after, a protracted and violent war between Jews and Romans. 
Their existence was due to the feelings engendered by this war. 

86 By Catholics must not be understood any particular denomination, 
but merely the main body of Christians, who regarded their God as iden- 
_ tical with the Jewish one, but were variously divided on other points. 

1 At Lystra (Acts 14, 11-18) we find heathens on the point of sacri- 
ficing to Paul and Barnabas, whom they termed Mercury and Jupiter. 
At Athens (Acts 17, 16-18) Paul is stirred by the idolatry which he 
witnesses, and is charged with advocating foreign divinities. At Ephesus 
(Acts 19, 24-41) the shrine-makers raise a tumult, and Paul in his let- 
ters to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10, 14, 20, 21 ; 2 Cor. 6, 16) finds need of 
directions concerning meat offered to these beings. Compare citations in 
Ch. II. note 5. 


22 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.  [cH. mI. 


In the second century many Christians, as already 
said, attributed nearly all evils to the rule of these dei- 
ties. Part of their ideas may have been borrowed from 
Jews, and some may have been superadded by themselves, 
but their vehement expressions of feeling show that their 
minds were filled with ‘thoughts of the contest waged by 
themselves against these enemies of God and man. The 
appended passages of Lamson and Kaye? give certainly no 





2 **God, he [Justin] very gravely tells us, having formed man, com- 
mitted him, together with all sublunary things, to the care of angels, 
whose too susceptible natures caused them to trespass with the frail daugh- 
ters of earth ; and hence sprang the race of demons. These demons did 
not long remain idle. They mixed in all human affairs, and soon ob- 
tained universal sway in the world. They deceived men by arts of magic, 
frightened them with apparitions, caused them to see visions and dream 
dréams, perpetrated crimes, and performed numerous feats and prodigies, 
which the fabulous poets of antiquity, in their ignorance, transferred to 
the gods. They presided over the splendid ‘mythology of the Heathen, 
instituted sacrifices, and regaled themselves with the blood of victims, of 
which they began to be in want after they became subject to passionsand — 
lusts.’ They were the authors of all heresies, fraud, and mischief. Their 
malice was chiefly directed against the Savior ; whose’ success, they well 
knew, would be attended with their overthrow : and therefore, long before’ 
his appearance on earth, they tasked their ingenuity to defeat the purpose 
of his mission. They invented tales about the gods of the nations, cor- 
responding to the descriptions of him given by the Hebrew prophets ; 
hoping‘ so to fill the minds of men with ‘lying vanities,’ that the writ- 
ings which predicted his advent might be brought into discredit, and all 
that related to him pass for fable. For example, when they heard the 
prophecy of Moses, Gen. 49, 10, 11, —* The sceptre shall not depart 
from Judahj ior a lawgiver from between ‘his feet, until Shiloh come ; 
and he’shall be’ the expectation of the nations, binding his foal to the 
vine, and washing his garment in the blood of the grape,’— they got up, 
as a counterpart, the story of Bacchus, the son of Jupiter and inventor 
of the grape, arid introduced wine into'the celebration of his mysteries, 
and ‘répresented him as finally’ascending into heaven. They were exceed- 
ingly sagacious, but, with all’ their astuteness, found some difficulty in 
interpreting’ parts of the above-mentioned prediction of Jacob. The 
prophet had not expressly said whether he who should ‘come was to he 
the son of God, or the son of man; nor whether he was to make use of 


§ 1.] OPINIONS CONCERNING HEATHEN DEITIES. 23: 


exaggerated picture of the position assigned by Justin to 
thesé supposed malevolent beings. The same holds true 
of a statement by the latter concerning Tatian.? The 





the foal spoken of while he remained on earth, or only during his ascent 
into heaven. To get over this difficulty, these crafty demons, in addi- 
tion to the story of Bacchus, trumped up that of Bellerophon, who was 
aman born of men ; and who, as they tell us, mounted on his Pegasus, 
ascended into heaven. The prediction of Isaiah relating to the virgin 
(7, 14), they said, was fulfilled in Perseus; that in Ps. 19, 5, ‘strong 
as a giant to run a race’ (which Justin seems to have applied to the 
Messiah), in Hercules, who was a man of strength, and traversed the 
whole earth. Again: when they found it predicted that he should cure 
diseases and raise the dead, they appealed to the case of Aisculapius, who 
also recalled.the dead to life, and was taken up intoheaven. . . . They 
‘hover about the beds of the dying, on the watch to receive the depart- 
ing soul.’ The spirits of just men, and prophets equally with others, he 
assures us, fall under their power ; of which we have an instance in the 
ease of Samuel, whose'soul was evoked by the witch of Endor. Hence, 
he continues, we pray, in the hour of death, that we may be preserved 
from the power of demons.” — Lamson, Church of the First Three Cen- 
 turies, pp. 48-45. - 

“Actuated [Justin says] by a spirit of unremitting hostility against 
God and against goodness, the demons instigated all the persecutions to 
which not only the Christians, but the virtuous among the heathen 
were exposed. They also excited the Jews to put Christ to death. They 
were the authors of the calumnious accusations brought against the Chris- 
tians. To their suggestions were to be traced the different heresies which 
had arisen in the Church ; the unjust and wicked laws which had been 
enacted in different states ; in short, they were the authors of all evil 
existing in the world. Among these evil Angels the serpent who de- 
ceived Eve, called also in Scripture Satan, and the Devil, was pre-emi- 
nent ; who, together with the other apostate Angels, and with wicked 
men, will be consigned to eternal flames at the consummation of all 
things. 

“With respect to demoniacal possessions, Justin says, that the Chris- 
tians, by abjuring demons in the name of Christ, were enabled to work 
cures which the Jewish and heathen exorcists had in vain attempted.” 
— John [Kaye] Bishop of Lincoln, Writings and Opinions of Justin 
Martyr, pp. 109, 110. 

8 «The sole object of the Demons [Tatian holds] is to lead men away 
from the truth. With this view they invented the Arts of Divination, 


24 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY [cH. I. 


author of the Clementines is equally unmistakable in 
treating them as the source of almost all evil* The 
views of Tertullian as given by Kaye® are not exagger- 





and set up the Oracles. They, employ every artifice to prevent the soul 
from rising upwards, and pursuing its way to heaven. . . . One great 
object of the demons is, to persuade man that whatever happens to him, 
either of good or evil, whether he falls sick or recovers from sickness, is 
owing to their agency. To this end they invented amulets, philters, and 
charms, in order that man might be induced to trust to them, or, at 
least, to the properties of matter, rather than to his Creator.” —John 
[Kaye] Bishop of Lincoln, Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr, 
pp. 203, 204. The demons ‘‘ do not heal, but by artifice lead mortals 
captive.” —Tatian, Orat. 18; Opp. p. 82 C, edit. Otto; p. 259 D H, 
edit. Maran. 

4 In the Clementine Homilies (8, 12-19) it is said that the angels 
who inhabited the region nearest the earth took to themselves earthly 
brides. Their children were the giants, by whose misdeeds the earth 
was polluted ; they were swept away by the flood. To mankind, after 
the flood, the absence of former excellence rendered a law necessary, which 
(cp. p.. 191, note 5) was given through an angel. ‘‘ But you as yet 
ignore the law ; for any one doing homage to demons, or sacrificing, or 
partaking of their table, becoming [thus] their bondsman, partakes — like 
[others] under wicked masters — of all the punishment which they in- 
flict. . . . You ought to know that demons have no authority over any 
one unless he first becomes a participant at their table.” — 8, 20. See 
also Judaism at Rome, p. 362, note 12. 

§ Tertullian “asserts, in the first place, that there are spiritual sub- 
stances, or material spirits : this is not denied even by the philosophers. 
These spiritual or angelic substances were originally created to be the 
ministers of the Divine will ; but some were betrayed into transgression. 
Smitten with the beauty of the daughters of men, they descended from 
heaven [compare Book of Enoch, c. 7, and Judaism at Rome, p. 484], 
and imparted many branches of knowledge, revealed to themselves, but 
hitherto hidden from mankind : the properties of metals — the virtues 
of herbs — the powers of enchantment — and the arts of divination and 
astrology. Out of complaisance also to their earthly brides, they com- 
municated the arts which administer to female vanity : of polishing 
and setting precious stones — of dyeing wool— of preparing cosmetics. 
[Compare Book of Enoch, c. 8.] 

‘¢ From these corrupt angels sprang demons; a still more corrupt race 


§1.] ‘OPINIONS CONCERNING HEATHEN DEITIES. 25, 


ated, though they may need slight correction from other 
passages. He has also given the views of Clement of 





of spirits, whose actuating principle is hostility against man, and whose 
sole object is to accomplish his destruction. This they attempt in 
various ways ; but as they are invisible to the eye, their mischievous 
activity is known only by its effects. They nip the fruit in the bud ; 
they blight the corn ; and, as through the tenuity and subtlety of their 
substance they can operate on the soul as well as the body, while they 
inflict diseases on the one, they agitate the other with furious passions 
and ungovernable lust. By the same property of their substance they 
cause men to dream. But their favorite employment is, to draw men 
off from the worship of the true God to idolatry. For this purpose they 
lurk within the statues of deceased mortals ; practising illusions upon 
weak minds, and seducing them into a belief in the divinity of an idol. 
In their attempts to deceive mankind, they derive great assistance from 
the rapidity with which they transport themselves from one part of the 
globe to another. They are thus enabled to know and to declare what is 
passing in the most distant countries ; so that they gain the credit of 
being the authors of events of which they are only the reporters. It was 
this peculiarity in the nature of demons which enabled them to com- 
municate to the Pythian priestess what Croesus was at that very moment 
doing in Lydia. In like manner, as they are continually passing to and 
fro through the region of the air, they can foretell the changes of the 
weather ; and thus procure for the idol the reputation of possessing an 
insight into futurity. When by their delusions they have induced. men 
to offer sacrifice, they hover about the victim ; snuffing up with delight 
the savory steam, which is their proper food. The demons employed 
other artifices in order to effect the destruction of man. As during their 
abode in heaven they were enabled to obtain some insight into the na- 
ture of the Divine dispensdtions, they endeavored to preoccupy the 
minds of men, and to prevent them from embracing Christianity, by in- 
venting fables bearing some resemblance to the truths which were to 
become the objects of faith under the Gospel. Thus they invented the 
tales of the tribunal of Minos and Rhadamanthus in the infernal regions ; 
of the river Pyriphlegethon, and the Elysian Fields ; in order that when 
the doctrines of a future judgment, and of the eternal happiness and 
misery prepared for the good and wicked in another life, should be re- 
vealed, the common people might think the former equally credible, the 
philosopher equally incredible, with the latter.” — John [Kaye] Bishop 
of Lincoln, Ecc. Hist. Illust. from Tertullian, 3d edit. pp. 200 — 204. 

6 Tertullian evidently identifies in some passages the demon with the 


26 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cu. m1 


Alexandria,’ to whose opinions an additional reference is 
subjoined.§ 

Origen and Minucius. Felix believed, equally with 
others of their time, in the active agency of demons. 
Even the agony in the garden and on the cross seem, in 
the eyes of the former, to “have resulted from anticipations 
of conflict with them.’ 





heathen deity. See his Apology, 12, cited in Underworld Mission, p. 78 ; 
3d edit. pp. 74, 75. Kaye has not made sufficient allowance for the fact 
that Tertullian’s views were somewhat inconsistent with each other. 

7 **Clement speaks of apostate angels, who, smitten by the beauty of 
women, and giving themselves up to their lusts, were cast down from 
heaven. They revealed to women the Divine mysteries. which had come 
to their knowledge, and which it was intended to keep secret until the 
advent of the Lord. Thus men received the doctrine of Providence and 
the knowledge of sublime things (rév weredpwr). Demons, according 
to Clement, are hateful and impure Spirits, always tending downwards to 
the earth, hovering about tombs and monuments, where they are ob- 
scurely seen, like shadowy phantasms. He couples them with bad an- 
gels, and says that the name of angels or demons was given to the souls 
of men. In some places he applies the name daluoves [demons] to the 
heathen gods; in others he alludes to the Platonic distinction between 
gods and demons. . 

‘* With respect to the worship of demons, Clement doubts who first: 
erected altars and offered sacrifices to them ; but savs expressly that the 
first altar to Love was erected by Charmus (qu. Charinus) in the academy. 
He speaks of a demon to whom gluttons are subject ; but says that men: 
cannot truly ascribe their sins to the agency of demons ; since, if they) 
can, they will themselves be free from guilt. He defines the passions, 
impressions made upon the soft.and yielding soul by the spiritual powers, | 
against whom we have to wrestle. The object of these malevolent 
powers is on every occasion to produce something of their own habits or 
dispositions, and thus to bring again under their subjection those who 
have renounced them (in baptism)... In the case of demoniacal posses=| 
sions, the demon entered into the possessed. person, who in consequence 
did not speak his own language, but that of the demon. The magicians, 
however, pretended that they could at all times command the services of; 
the demons.” — John [Kaye] Bishop of Lincoln, Weitings and Oping 
ions of Clement of Alexandria, pp. 359 — 361. 

8 See Underworld Mission, p. 97 ; 3d edit. p. 93, note 1. 

9 See Underworld Mission, § XV. Origen, however, believed equally 


$2.) . OPINIONS CONCERNING IDOLATRY. 27 


The overthrow of these demons was sometimes held up 
as the object of Christ’s mission. Justin Martyr says (Apol. 
2,6): “He became man... that he might overthrow 
the demons.” 

If we now turn to the Gospels we find not one word 
concerning the heathen deities. The Teachér of teachers 
does not even allude, as there represented, to this fearful 
. conflict which his followers were to wage at every step 
through life. Any demons mentioned in the Gospels 
are simply depicted as authors of some physical disease, 
but are nowhere identified with the heathen deities, nor 
represented as objects of worship. It is morally impos- 
sible, if the early Christians had tampered with their Mas- 
ter’s history, that this —to them all absorbing — subject 
should have been totally overlooked, and no teachings in 
regard to it have been ascribed to the Master. 


§ 2. Concerning Idolatry. 


Distinct from any question as to the origin and char- 
acter of these beings was their identification with the 
wooden or metallic or earthenware images which were 
supposed to represent them. This treatment of an image 
as a god was heartily ridiculed by Christians, as it had 
been (Wisdom of Solomon, 18, 11-19) by Jews before them. 
When the image was of wood, or of cheap metal, or of 
pottery, they took satisfaction in pointing out its defects, 
or the base uses to which chance only prevented it from 
being applied. If it were of costly metal, Christians 
pointed out that the god needed a guard to prevent him 
from being stolen. The Epistle to Diognetus (§ 2) con- 
denses these arguments. 





in the ministry of good angels ; see Lamson, Church of the First Three 
Centwries, pp. 195, 196, and Huet, Origeniana, 2, 2, 5; pp. 272-350 in 
Vol. 22 of Lommatzsch’s Origen. 

“« By these and similar fables the same demons have filled the ears of 
the inexperienced that they might excite an execrating horror against us.” 
‘—Minucius Felix, Octavius, 28, pp. 142, 148, edit. Davis. Minucius 
had previously given a list of crimes charged against Christians, among 

which (p. 142, compare p. 49) was the eating of infants. 


28 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH, 1. 


Another question concerning Idolatry was ethical: Did, 
or did not, God regard it as a crime the most serious 
which his children could commit ? 

Before attending to this, it may be well to say that, 
even prior to the Christian era, Idolatry was by the » 
ruling classes kept up for political reasons. (Compare 
Judaism, p. 155 n.) In the reign of Claudius, A. D, 41 - 
54, it had died out at Rome and needed to be revived. 
The effort to revive it was merely a political one, yet the 
privileged classes, who labored for its restoration, seem to 
have found a moderate degree of belief among the weak- 
minded and superstitious. Honest belief in Idolatry was 
the exception, yet the exception was frequent enough to 
deserve attention. Let us set aside the credulity of the 
dishonest, who thought that by paying a god sufficiently, 
he would aid them in misdeeds, and let us take a case of 
honest belief. 

- Let us suppose that-a heathen had sacrificed to a hea- 
then divinity either because of his own escape from peril, 
or because some member of his family had been restored 
to health. If he did it in good faith, believing in aid 
received from the deity, was he committing a crime which 
the Supreme Being would not forgive? 

Let us suppose that a monotheistic brother or relative 
were invited by the heathen to join in the feast of thank- 
fulness. Would such guest, by tasting ignorantly or 
knowingly the meat which had been offered to an idol, 
commit a crime the most serious in the eye of God ? 

Some Liberalist Jews would, equally with Paul, have 
taken ground that eating the meat!? was indifferent, 
save when it caused risk of misleading others into what 
they believed wrong. The mass, however, of Jews and 
Jewish Christians would have deemed it a gross delin- 
quency under any circumstances to taste such meat. The 
Council of Christians held at Jerusalem expressly forbade 





10 **Do not for the sake of food undo the work of God. All things 
indeed are clean ; but that which is pure is evil for that man who eateth 
so as to be an occasion of sin.” — Rom. 14, 20. See also 1 Cor. 8, 8-10, 
quoted in Ch. II. note 5, and Coloss. 2, 16, quoted in Ch. II. note 11. 


§3.] |‘ CHRIST’S MISSION TO THE UNDERWORLD. 29 


it. Even the heathen, who with a good motive, or at 
least with nothing wrong in his purpose, had spread such 
a feast, would, by many Jews and by a large proportion 
of Jewish Christians, have been deemed guilty of an of- 
fence for which he could not deeply enough bow himself 
in penitence. 

The Christians, in their conflict with heathenism, came 
to regard Idolatry as the chief of all sins. 

Of this question, which caused great trouble even in 
Apostolic times, — and by which the mentally weak may 
have been perplexed even to agony, — nothing appears in 
the Gospels. The Teacher is not represented as uttering 
one word concerning it for the guidance of his followers. 


§ 3. Christ’s Mission to the Underworld. 


Among early Christians a belief prevailed, which began 
probably in the first century, that Christ at his death 
entered on a Mission to the Underworld. This belief 
permeated every branch of the Christian community, and 
seems to have taken deep hold in each and every one of 
them.” It was a favorite explanation of the object for 
which Christ died.* The vicarious atonement does not 
at the present day occupy a more prominent place in the 
theology of those denominations which attach most im- 
portance to it, than did the Underworld Mission in the 
theology of the early Christians. 

The Gospels make no mention of Christ’s Mission to 
the Underworld. Had the early Christians fabricated 
them from their own views, this omission would be unac- 





i **The PRINCIPAL crime of the human race, the cHIEF indictment 
against the world, the soue cause of the judgment, is Idolatry.” — Ter- 
tullian, de Idololat. 1. Compare Judaism, p. 362, note 12. 

** Others say: We more than others practically recognize the Divine 
nature, recognizing it and [its] images. . . . How do you pronounce 
yourselves more than others practical recognizers [of the Divine nature, 
you] who recognize it least of all, meriting destruction of your souls by 
this one and UNEQUALLED sin, if truly you persevere in it ?’”” — Clemen- 
tine Homilies, 11, 12, 

22 Underworld Mission, §§ 1-24. 13 Underworld Mission, § 6." 


30 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. » [cH. m1, 


countable. Jesus is not even made in the Gospels to tell 
his disciples, after returning to life, the important work 
which he was supposed to have performed. 


 § 4. Resurrection of the Flesh. 


Prior to the Christian era a belief prevailed among 
Jews in a future anastasis, that is, a resurrection or re- 
placement. In some cases a replacement of mankind alone 
may have been intended, but in others a replacement of 
the world, of mankind, and of the animal creation may 
have been included in the term. In this latter shape the 
Stoics seem to have borrowed the view.!4 ' 

Christians adopted the Jewish term, but differed 
among themselves as to what they should. understand by 
it. Some understood a physical resurrection of mankind, 
while others held that at death we permanently left our 
present physical bodies. Between these two divisions of 
Christians there was sharp discussion. The believers in 
a physical resurrection regarded the opposite party as 
heretical. The opposite party regarded adherents of the 
physical resurrection as weak-minded or stupid. 

In a former work an outline has been given of the 
two parties. Even in Apostolic times we find that the 





14 Judaism at Rome, p. 44, note 12, and p. 57, note 50. 

15 Underworld Mission, Appendix, Note E. To the citations there 
given should be added the following. Tatian, after telling the hea- 
thens that they held a medley of conflicting opinions, adds: ‘‘ Some 
say .... that the soul only is rendered immortal, but I, that the flesh 
[is rendered immortal] with it.” — Orat. 25; Opp. p. 104 CD, edit. 
Otto ;.p. 265 C, edit. Maran. ‘‘Since the Lord . ... arose bodily... 
it is manifest that his disciples, . . . receiving their bodies and rising 
perfectly, that is, bodily as the Lord arose, will thus come into the pres- 
ence of God.” — Irenzeus, 5, 31, 2. 

‘Tertullian, in a work devoted to this question, argues (de Reswrrect. 
Carnis, 7, 8) that the body ministers to the privileges of the soul and in 
martyrdom. suffers imprisonment or torment, and would not be fairly 
treated unless gifted equally as the soul with future reward. Compare 
his Ayol. 48, and in Athenagoras, de Reswrrect. 18, p. 264 D A, edit. Otto. 


§ 5.] - ‘THE MILLENNIUM. 31 


discussion touching the resurrection and the future body 
must have been animated./® 

_ If we now turn to the Gospels, we find nothing taught 
by the Master, nor any question raised, concerning man’s 
future body, or as to whether he should have a body. An 
argument of our Savior in one passage implies that those 
who had passed away were yet in existence.” In another 
passage a FUTURE resurrection might seem to be implied,'® 
but in neither case is there an argument or distinct state- 
ment as to the character of the future body. 


§ 5. The Millennium. 


Among Jews a belief existed in a Millennium, a period 
of one thousand years, during which the good were to live 
on earth untroubled by the presence of the bad? Among 
Christians this belief reappears already in Apostolic times,” 
and must have been largely held by Jewish and semi- 

Jewish Christians.24_ Among Liberalist Catholics, however, 





16 1 Cor. 15, 12-44. 

47 Jesus quotes (Matt. 22, 32; Mark 12, 2s, 27; Luke 20, 37, 3s) 
from the Old Testament the words: ‘‘I am the God of Abraham, and 
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” and appends the remark, ‘‘ God 
is not a God of the dead, but of the living,” implying that at the date 
when God uttered these words Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive. 

18 Jesus speaks of those who were in their graves (John 5, 28, 29) as 
hereafter to hear his voice and to come forth. The passage, though it 
affirms nothing concerning a physical resurrection, might suggest it to 
those who already believed in it. 

19 Trypho the Jew is represented by Justin as saying : ‘ Tell me truly, 
do you confess that this place, Jerusalem, is to be rebuilt, and do you 
expect your People to be assembled and rejoice with the Messiah, together 
with the patriarchs and prophets and those [either] of our race, or who 
became proselytes [to our views] before the advent of your Christ ?” — 
Justin Martyr, Dial. 80, Opp. 2, 272 ©, edit. Otto; p. 177 C, edit. 
Maran. The answer (see note 21) implies that the rejoicing would be 
for a thousand years. 

20 Rev. 20, 2-7. 

41 Papias ‘‘said that after the resurrection of the [just ?] dead there 
would be a special thousand years, the reign of Christ being understood 


32 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. 11, 


we find it so sharply ridiculed as to imply that its oppo- 
nents were anxious to avoid any appearance of holding it. 
Its advocates looked upon those who rejected it as swerv- 
ing from the true faith. Cp. Underworld Mission, p. 159, 
od edit. 

On this disputed point not a word appears in the Gos- 
pels. The Teacher gives his followers no instruction on 
the subject. 


§ 6. Restoration of Jerusalem. 


From the date when the Jewish Temple was destroyed, 
or surrounded by Roman armies, which threatened its de- 
struction, a belief gained currency among the Jews, that 





as a physical one upon this earth.” — Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 3, 39; Opp. 
1, p. 284, edit. Heinich.; 1,112, edit. Vales. To this Eusebius appends 
the remark that Papias was a man of exceedingly little mind. 

Justin Martyr says: ‘‘I and any other Christians who think cor- 
rectly on all points, understand that there is to be a resurrection of the 
flesh and a [residence of a] thousand years in Jerusalem rebuilt and 
adorned and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel [$7, 12 sqq.] and Isaiah 
[65, 17-25] and the others acknowledge.” — Dial. 80, Opp. 2, 276 B, 
edit. Otto; p. 178 B C, edit. Maran. 

‘* These things [promised by Jesus] are [to be received] in the times of 
the kingdom, that is, in the seventh day . . . which is the true sabbath 
of the just . . . allanimals— using the kinds of food which are derived 
from the earth —will be made pacific and mutually harmonious.” — Ire- 
nzeus, cont. Heres. 5, 33, 2-3. 

‘God made the work of his hands in six days and finished on the 
seventh day and rested on it. . . . This means that God will finish all 
things in six thousand years, for a day with him is as one thousand years. 
. . - He rested on the seventh day. This means, when his son, coming, 
- shall do away the time of the Law-less One and shall condemn unbeliev- 
ers, and shall change the sun and moon and stars, then he shall rest 
gloriously on the seventh day.” — Barnabas, Fpist. 15; (al. 13, 3-6.) 

‘*Papias . . . is said to have enunciated the Jewish Millennium —a 
duplicate of it ; whom Irenzeus and Apollinarius and others followed, say- 
ing that after the resurrection the Lord will reign bodily with his saints. 
Tertullian also, in a book On the Hope of the Faithful, and Victorinus of 
Pettaw and Lactantius followed this view.”— Jerome, de Viris Illust. 18, 
Opp. 2, col. 859, 860. 


§ 7.] ROME’S DESTRUCTION, 33 


Jerusalem would be rebuilt and enlarged by Divine 
power. The belief must have appeared equally early 
among Jewish Christians, who regarded it as the locality 
where their Master was to reign.” It was held by semi- 
Jewish Christians in the second century. Even Liber- 
alist Catholics retained Jewish 1 phraseology whilst essen- 
tially modifying Jewish views. 

Of these expectations nothing whatever appears in the 
Gospels, although these Gospels were obviously written 
by persons of Jewish education. 


§ 7. Rome’s Destruction. 


Sixty-three years before the Christian era, a Roman 
general had shocked Jewish feeling by entering the Holy 
of Holies, and had wounded Jewish pride by conquering . 
their nation. From that time we find a belief among 
Jews, that God had doomed Rome to destruction, and 
that this destruction would be the precursor of the new 
or Messianic era.” 

Christians adopted this belief in apostolic times,” and 
it retained its hold on the Jewish and semi-Jewish por- 
tions of them for centuries.* 

No word concerning this belief appears in the Gospels. 





Sympathy with Jewish feeling and opinion is the only source whence 
Christians can have obtained this view. Irenzeus quotes (5, 35, 1, 2) 
various passages from the Old Testament in support of it, using, among 
others, a passage of Baruch (4, 36, 37) in which is the statement, ‘‘ Arise, 
Jerusalem, and stand on high . . . and see thy children collected from 
the rising of the sun even to his setting.” — The extant Latin differs 
slightly from the Septuagint. 

23 Rev. 21, 9-22, 5. 

% See note 21, and compare Judaism, pp. 256, 268. 

25 According to Origen, the holy city (Matt. 27, 53) into which the 
saints entered was the ‘‘ Heavenly Jerusalem,” the ‘‘ rruLyY holy city, 
the Jerusalem over which Jesus had not wept.” — Origen, Comment. in 
Matt. Lib. 12, 48, Opp. edit. de la Rue, 3, 566 A; edit. Lommatzsch, 3, 
203. 

26 See Judaism at Rome, pp. 116-184. . 

2% Judaism, pp. 265-268. 2 Judaism, pp. 135, 186. 


34 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. m1. 


§ 8. Beliar, or Antichrist. 


In A. D. 52, Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome, 
and in that or the succeeding year an effort was made to 
place his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem. Coincident 
with this we find among Jews and Christians a belief that 
the Roman emperor, after making himself God’s opponent, 
would be overthrown, and that his destruction would 
precede the new era. Jews called him (see Judaism, 
pp. 188-140, 239 n) Beliar. Christians termed him the 
LAWLEss ONE,’ that is, THE HEATHEN, a term replaced 
afterwards by that of Antichrist? a conflict being ex- 
pected between him and the true Christ. 

The effort to erect the emperor’s statue in the Temple 
was probably manceuvred by the Roman aristocracy and 
foiled by the younger Herod Agrippa, who must have 
visited Rome for that purpose.*! It seems to have been 
made from Samaria, where its designers may have secured 
co-operation from some of the less religious Samaritans.” 





29 See Barnabas, in note 21, and 2 Thess. 2, 8, in Judaism, p. 236. 

89 «<The resurrection of the Just . . . which takes place after the ad- 
vent of Antichrist.” Iren. cont. Heres. 5,35, 1. ‘* ‘It is necessary . . . 
that Antichrist should first come, and then that the true Christ, our Jesus, 
should appear.’”’ Clem. Hom. 2, 17. 

81 Tacitus tells us indirectly (An. 12, 54) that the Jews were expect- 
ing Claudius to attempt putting his statue in the Temple. Josephus 
mentions (Wars, 2,12, 1) a difficulty at the Temple in which, according 
to his — no doubt exaggerated — account, ten thousand Jews were killed ; 
and attributes the commotion, as also some subsequent ones, to causes so 
trifling as to imply that for some reason he has avoided telling the truth. 
We find, moreover, in the same writer (Wars, 2, 12, 7) that the younger 
King Agrippa, who visited: Rome perhaps with special reference to this 
difficulty, confronted there the Roman governor and THE SAMARITANS ; 
and in the writings, of Paul (see Judaism, p. 236 n) we find a passage 
scarcely explicable unless some such effort had been arrested by Agrippa. 

32 Justin Martyr mentions (Apol. 1, 26, 56) that in the time of Clau- 
dius a statue had been voted to a Samaritan named Simon, whom Justin 
identifies with Simon Magus. A statue to a Sabine deity, which has 
been dug up on an island in the Tiber, may have misled Justin, who was 


§ 9.) | NERO’S: RETURN. 22 35 


Whether the Roman emperor, at a yet earlier date, had 
been regarded as the aspiring opponent whom God was 
to crush, may admit question. . Between A, D, 41, when 
Caligula was murdered, and A.D. 52 or 53, whose occur- 
rences we have just narrated, the Jewish aristocracy had 
been inventing falsehoods against Caligula? Whether 
the charge against him, of intending to put his statue in 
the Temple, had any existence before A. D, 52 or 53, is a 
matter of inference. The Jewish aristocracy, who in ex- 
culpation of their own crimes had been maligning him, 
may not have invented this particular charge until the 
action of their political associates, the Roman aristocracy, 
had rendered it necessary. 

Of Beliar, or Antichrist, or of any questions connected 
with such a being, not a trace appears in the Gospels. 


§ 9. Nero's Return. 


Blended with the preceding head, was the belief held 
by many Jews. and Christians, subsequently to Nero's 
death, in A. D. 68, that Nero would return as Beliar, or 
Antichrist. 

Among heathens the belief that he would. return had 
nothing supernatural connected with it, being based. on 
the supposition that he was not dead. In the course of 
a lifetime it died out. 

Among Jews and Christians an anticipation existed 
that he was to come back from the Underworld, or from 
some locality outside of this life, and that his return was 
to precede the new era. Of this belief not a word ap- 
pears in the Gospels. 





not critically gifted, and who may have known only at second-hand con- 
cerning the statue there. Yet th y co-operation with patricians 
should have been rewarded by them with a statue, or at least with the 
voted promise of one, is natural enough, The death of Claudius may 
have prevented its erection. Compare preceding note. 
_ 88 See Judaism at Rome, pp. 187-140. 

84 See Judaism at Rome, Appendix, Note F, 


& 


36 INDIRECT ‘TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. 1. 


§ 10. Conflagration of the World. 


A belief had originated among Hellenist Jews, and 
been adopted by Stoics, before the Christian era, that the 
world would undergo a renovation by fire, from which it 
would emerge in pristine excellence and beauty.® 

Christians adopted, even in Apostolic times, the belief 
in such a conflagration.2®> In the second and subsequent 
centuries ®’ it prevailed to no small extent. 

No allusion appears in the Gospels to this expectation, 
one of the most vivid which prevailed among Christians. 


§ 11. God Devoid of Name. 


In the controversy between Christians and heathens no 
little stress was laid by the former on an assertion that 
the Supreme and Uncreated God must necessarily be de- 
void of name.*8 In heathen lands, where the Gentile gods 
had names, this view of the Christians originated natu- 
rally and acquired prominence. 





85 See Judaism, pp. 44, 45, 55-57. ; 

86 <*'The heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are 
kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition 
of ungodly men... . The heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the 
elements shall melt with fervent heat. Nevertheless, we, according to 
his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth 
righteousness.” —2 Pet. 3, 7, 12, 13. Compare Judaism, pp. 485, 486. 

87 ‘‘Sibylla and Hystaspes say that there will be a dissolution of corrupt- 
ible things by fire.” —Justin Martyr, Apol. 1, 20. ‘The prophetic 
spirit fore-indicated through Moses, that there will be a conflagration.” — 
Apol. 1,60. ‘‘ We affirm that the conflagration will take place thus.” — 
Apol. 2,7. ‘‘The wicked demons strive to persuade you that there will 
be no conflagration for the punishment of heathens.” — Apol. 1,57. Com- 
pare a conjectural emendation of editors, Apol. 1, 45 ; in Otto’s edit. p.. 
228, note 3. ‘‘Some one [among Stoics? or heathens?] will say... 
that the conflagration will take place at stated times, but I [that it will 
take place] only once.” — Tatian, Orat. 25; Opp. p. 1040, edit. Otto; 
p. 265 B, edit. Maran. See also Judaism at Rome, p. 45, note 15. 

88 See Underworld Mission, p. 152 n, 3d edit. p. 146 n, and compare in 
the present work a citation from Eusebius in Ch. VIII. note 4. 


§ 12.] OLD TESTAMENT PREDICTIONS. 37 


No allusion to it appears in the Gospels. The term 
God appears in them as having a well-settled meaning, 
which permitted no questions concerning it. 


§ 12. Old Testament Predictions. 


In Apostolic times we find quotations made from the 
Old Testament, and arguments based upon these quota- 
tions, in proof that Jesus was the Christ. 

In the second century, after the Jewish rebellion under 
Hadrian, Christians, or at least a large portion of them, 
had a mania for arguments of this class. Passages from 
the Old Testament, which often needed laborious and 
improbable explanations, as a means of forcing them to 
predict circumstances in the life of Jesus, were quoted at 
length and treated as conclusively plain. The Jews were 
treated as wilfully blind and obstinate in their refusal to 
accept these interpretations. The professed discussions 
with, or arguments against, them were probably intended 
for circulation among Gentiles, and passages therein 
quoted as arguments were urged on Gentiles, as if they 
admitted no other explanation. 

The inability of Christians to use their own records in 
behalf of their assertions predisposed them to stretch 
other arguments to their utmost. The author of the Co- 
hortatio ad Greecos calls attention to the preservation of 
these Old Testament predictions by the Jews, as a work 
of Providence, since the Christians, by quoting from writ- 
ings preserved in the synagogues of their enemies, would 
be free from suspicion of having tampered with them.*! 

The stress laid on prophecy may be inferred from an 
objection to the heathen deities, made by Commodianus, 
that they had not been predicted. He meant, probably, 





8 Acts 2, 25-36 ; 13, 32-37; 18, 28. 

49 Judaism at Rome, pp. 344-346. 

41 Ch. 13, Justin, Opp. p. 48 E. 

#2 “No one prophesied beforehand that he (Saturn) would be born.” — 
Commodianus, Jnstruct. 6, line 13. ‘‘ You pray to so many gods... 
nor were they themselves predicted.” — Instruct. 8, ll.-8, 9. 


38 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. _[oH. m1, 


that beings who came into existence without. having been 
foretold had nothing divine about them. 

In the Gospels there is no quotation from the Old 
Testament extant, on which Jesus is represented as bas- 
ing an argument for his Divine mission. Two passages # 
might raise the question whether he believed the Old 
Testament to contain such predictions, but no quotation 
of them, with an argument from them by Jesus, is to be 
found in the Gospels.* This certainly would not have 
been the fact, if Christians of the second century, or even 
of Apostolic times, had fabricated or interpolated them 
with reference to their own conceptions of truth. . 


§ 13. Jesus as Deity of the Old Testament. 


A little after A. D. 150 the opinion was broached 
among Christians that Jesus was the God who had spoken 
to the Patriarchs, had shut the door of the Ark after 





48 One of these passages (John 5, 39, 46, 47), though frequently under- 
stood as an appeal to predictions, favors by its connection the suppo- 
sition that Jesus had in view the moral and religious instructions of. 
Moses, written with reference to himself, that is (see Judaism, p. 394), 
to prepare the way for his mission, The impediment specified by Jesus 
as preventing belief on him is not an inability to. decipher. predictions, 
but that, ‘‘ you have not the love of God in you. . . . How can you 
believe who accept honor from each other and seek not that honor which — 
is from the Only God? . . . Had you believed Moses you would have 
believed me, for it was with reference to me that he wrote.” _ 

The other passage (Luke 24, 25-27) admits either supposition, that 
Jesus referred to predictions or to moral instructions, yet the latter is 
favored by a subsequent remark of the disciples (24, 32): ‘*Did not 
our hearts burn within us . . . as he opened to us the Scriptures?” An 
explanation of predictions would have exercised the mind rather than — 
warmed the heart. . 

44 Jesus appeals (John 5, 32-34) to the testimony of. John, though 
alleging that it ought to be needless; he appeals (John 5, 36) to his 
miracles and (John 7,17) to the character of his teaching, but. in no 
instance does the record contain an explanation by him of the manner in 
which an Old Testament prediction is applicable to himself, 

45 See Appendix, Note M. 


§ 14.] PERSONAL’ APPEARANCE” OF JESUS. 39 


Noah, and whose presence was in various: ways recorded 
in the Old Testament. This view had in the third 
century gained considerable foothold, but. it is difficult 
to say whether within a quarter of a century after its 
origin it found adherents enough to create any strong 
probability of its ingress into the Gospels, if at that date 
they had been in process of formation. The probability 
will seem stronger or weaker, according to the hold on 
the minds of Christians which the reader supposes the 
above view to have taken. 
The view of course does not exist in the Gospels. 


. § 14. Personal Appearance of Jesus. 


- In the latter half of the second century, and the first 
half of the third, a mania, as already said (see § 12), 
existed among many Christians for misapplying to their 
Master passages from the Old: Testament, which they had 
deluded themselves into regarding as predictions.© They 
treated the words of Isaiah, “He had no form, nor come- 
liness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty, that we 
should take pleasure in him,’ * as spoken of Jesus, and 
put into their Master's mouth the twenty-second Psalm, 
of which verse 6 reads, “I am a worm, and not a man; 
the reproach of men, and the scorn of the people.” * ! 
- Justin repeatedly mentions “the first coming of Christ, 





4 See Judaism, pp. 344-346, with the explanation there given as to 
what strengthened this mania. 
47 Ch. 53, 2, Noyes’ trans. 

48 Justin, though treating the Psalm (Dial. 98-106) as spoken by Christ, 
interprets verse 7 (Dial. 101) as indicating merely. Jewish contempt for 
him. Origen, in his Homily on Exodus (7, 8; Opp. 2, 156 A), though 
understanding the passage as spoken by Jesus, does not apply it to his 
‘personal appearance, nor do the Homilies on Luke which are sometimes 
erroneously attributed tohim. See Hom. 14; Orig. Opp. 3,948 F. Ter- 
tullian, however (adv. Judoos, 14, p. 228 B), quotes it separately from 
the rest of the Psalm, ‘and in a connection which indicates that he so ap- 
plied it. Probably Justin and in this instance Origen shrank from an 
interpretation which their heathen opponents were over-willing to see 
and use even without Christian aid. 


40 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. mm. 


in which it was foretold that he should appear without 
honor, and UNSIGHTLY and mortal.” * 

The Pseudo-Thaddeus is represented as telling Abgarus, 
“To-morrow gather together all the citizens, and then in 
their hearing I will . . . inform them of the coming of 
Christ, . . . and about the MEANNESS and DESPICABLENESS 
of his outward appearance.” °° 

A passage in the Sibylline Oracles says of Christ : “ Not 
in glory, but as a mortal [on the way] to his trial he will 
come, pitiable, dishonored, DEVOID OF FORM, that he may 
give hope to the miserable.” 

Whether Irenzeus meant to affirm the same unsightli- 
ness, may be a question. His language favors it.™ 

Statements and quotations such as the foregoing were 
admirably adapted to furnish material for heathen hu- 
morists and controversialists who wished to caricature the 
Founder of Christianity. Nor were they slow to avail 
themselves of the offered material. Celsus says: “Since 
the Divine spirit was in the boay [of Jesus], it ought 
entirely to surpass those of others in size, or beauty, or 
strength, or voice, or majesty, or persuasiveness, for it is 
impossible that he, in whom the divinity is present more 
than in others, should in no wise differ from another ; but 
this [body] differed nothing from another, but, as they 
say, was SMALL and UNSIGHTLY and IGNOBLE.” ® 

Origen replies that Celsus ignores opposite delinea- 





49 Dial. 14. Compare similar statements in cc. 49, 85, 100, 110; pp. 52 D, 
158 B, 288 A, 336 E, 364 E. Justin evidently lays emphasis on these 
statements. 

59 See fuller quotation in Appendix, Note F. 

51 Book 8, 256, 257. Compare in Appendix, Note J, No. 3. 

52 << They who say . . . ‘He will take on himself our infirmities, and 
will bear our weaknesses’ [Is. 53,4], announced the cures which were 
performed by him. Some also predicted that ‘he would come to Jerusa- 
lem as a Man INFIRM and INGLORIOUS, and knowing how to bear infirm- 
ity’ (Is. 53, 3] and sitting on the foal of an ass.” — Irenzeus, cont. Heres. 
4, 33, 11-12. 

58 Celsus quoted by Origen, cont. Cels. 6,75 (requoted 6, 77); Opp. 
edit. de la Rue, 1, pp. 688, 689; edit. Lommatzsch, 19, p. 425. 


§14.] | PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF JESUS. — Al 


tions of Jesus in the Scriptures. He says: “Confessedly 
there is written the things [said] concerning the body of 
Jesus having been unsightly ; but not as set forth, that it 
was ignoble, nor is it clearly manifested that it was small.” 4 
He then quotes, as equally apposite to Jesus, the words of 
Psalm 45, 3, “Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, mighty 
in thy stateliness and beauty,” and asks, “How does 
(Celsus) not see the superiority of the body of Jesus (and 
its consequent usefulness) in its ability to appear to be- 
holders as it ought to be seen by each one?” © 

Origen had already mentioned that Jesus had not 
merely the unsightly body, but also the glorified one, in 
which he appeared with Moses and Elijah ;* yet it is evi- 
dent that besides these two forms of unsightliness and 
glory, he assumed a changeability in the personal appear- 
ance of Jesus. In at least one other instance he utters 
the same view. Whether this were a conviction, or a 
temporary mental expedient for meeting an opponent’s 
argument, is not obvious, though the latter is the more 
probable. 





54 Cont. Cels. 6, 75; ed. de la Rue, 1, 689 B ; Lommatzsch, 19, 426. 

55 Cont. Cels. 6, 75; ed. de la Rue, 1, 689 - 690 ; Lommatzsch, 19, 427. 

56 Cont. Cels. 6, 77; edit. de la Rue, 1, p. 690 D; edit. Lommatzsch, 
19, 429. 

57 Cont. Cels. 6, 76. 

58 The following translation is from Norton’s Genuwineness, Vol. 3, 
p. 174, and is, he says, ‘‘considerably abridged” from the original. 
**<A tradition has come down to us, that Jesus had not only two forms, 
that in which he was seen by all, and that in which he was seen by his 
disciples at his transfiguration ; but that he appeared to every one in 
the form of which he was worthy ; and that (at times) when present, he 
appeared to all like another person. Thus he resembled the manna, 
which had a different taste for different individuals, accommodated to 
every man’s liking. _ And this tradition does not seem to me incredible. 
But if it were so, we may explain why the multitude which accom- 
panied Judas, though they had: often seen Jesus, nevertheless needed 
some one familiar with him to point him out to them, on account of the 
changes of his form.’ — Origen, Series Comment. in Matt. § 100; Opp. 
3, p. 906, edit. de la Rue ; Vol. 4, p. 446, edit. Lommatzsch. 


42 INDIRECT TESTIMONY :OF HISTORY. — [cu Iv. 


Absence of this folly from the Acts of Pilate renders: 


probable that it originated after their composition. 


Possibly some Christians may, even during the mania, 


above mentioned, have revolted at. the thought of attrib- 
uting to their Master, without historical evidence, an 
unsightly appearance. Clement of Alexandria, by his 
general tone of reference to Jesus, renders improbable 
that he can have shared the disposition to treat him as 
personally repulsive. A forged letter in the name of 
Lentulus,®® an assumed heathen, has come down to us, 
which must have been an effort by some Christian to 
counteract the foregoing folly. It ascribes to Jesus per- 
sonal stateliness and beauty. This—though the miracles 
receive a passing mention —is the chief object of the 
letter, and places it in marked contrast to other pseudo- 
heathen or pseudo-Jewish records of Jesus, which testify 
mainly to his ministry and miracles. . | | 

Concerning the personal appearance of Jesus not a 
word appears in the Gospels; neither, unsightliness nor 
beauty is attributed to him. 





CHAPTER IV. 


CHRISTIAN CUSTOMS. 


In some respects customs are more likely than mere 
opinions to cause collision or friction between those who 
observe different ones. In so far as we can feel assured 
of this having been the case touching Christian usages, 
they afford a strong and independent argument for integ- 
rity of the Gospels. 


§ 1. Concerning the Sabbath. 


Jewish Christians continued in most cases, equally with 
non-Christian Jews, to rest from labor on the seventh day, 





59. See the letter in Appendix, Note D. 


ré 


$hp: CONCERNING THE SABBATH. 43 


and to assemble on it for religious services. Gentile 
Christians found difficulties in the way of observing any 
day of rest, especially in times of political excitement. 
In such times a man of standing would have risked pros- 
ecution for observance of Foreign Rites, had he kept the 
seventh day as one of rest, while many slaves and many 
free laborers would not have been allowed control of their 
time. 

We find in the Apostolic Age that Paul treats the 
sabbath as not binding on Gentile Christians,’ and his 
tone indicates that there was no little feeling on the sub- 
ject. He urges that those who deemed one day more 
holy than another, and that those who deemed ALL DAYS 
alike, should not interfere with or condemn each other. 
His own views are plainly expressed that the Gentile 
Christians should not keep the sabbath. 

In the second century, after the imbittered war between 
Jews and heathens under Hadrian, we find intense feel- 
ing in discussions concerning the sabbath. A portion of 
the Christians treat the Jews as utterly foolish for ob- 
serving any day of rest, and speak of the sabbath as a 
temporary institution, imposed upon the Jews because of 


. their hard-heartedness.? 





1 See Ch. II. note 11. 

2 Portions of this discussion from Paul (Galat. 4, 9, 10 ; Coloss. 2, 16, 
17), Justin Martyr, Irenzus, and the Epistle to Diognetus have already 
been given in Ch. II. note 11; see also Rom. 14, 5, quoted in Ch. II. 
note 6. 

Irenzeus, equally with some other writers, takes ground that the sab- 
bath was a temporary institution for the Jews, intended as a sign, or 
Teminder, of an agreement between them and God. He argues: ‘‘ The 
prophet Ezekiel (20, 12] says the sarhe concerning sabbaths: ‘I have 
given them my sabbaths that they may be for a sign between me and 
them,’... . and in Exodus [31, 16, 17] God says to Moses, ‘and you shall 
observe my sabbaths, for it will be a sign to you with me, as regards 
your race.’ These things, therefore [circumcision and the sabbath], were 
given for a sign.” — Irenzeus, 4, 16, 1. 

Tertullian says: ‘Finally, whoever contends that the sabbath is 
to be observed until the present time as a means of salvation . . . let 


44 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. IV. 


Of this discussion and of the acrimonious feeling occa- 
sioned by it not a word appears in the Gospels. The 
sabbath is there recognized (Mark 2, 27) as made for man, 
not man for the sabbath. Nowhere do we find a word 
implying that it had come to an end. 


§ 2. Sunday as a Day of Religious Gatherings. 


Concerning the origin of Sunday service, no historical 
statement has been left us. Circumstances render prob- 
able that it originated towards the close of A. D. 52 or in 
A. D. 53. At that date a political condition of things 
rendered it dangerous for Gentiles to observe even in a 
limited degree the Jewish sabbath? Paul, on separating 
from the Jewish synagogue at Corinth, seems to have, 
commenced holding services on the first day of the week.* 

In the second century Sunday was regarded as a day 
of religious joy. Christians on that day were not allowed 
either to fast or kneel, and, when called to pray, were 
told, “Stand perfectly straight.” ® 

The custom of meeting on Sunday for religious service 





him teach that the Just MEN of former time [that is, those before Abra- 
ham or Moses] kept sabbaths . . . and were thus rendered friends of 
God. . . . He (God) commended his (Adam’s) offspring, Abel, when 
offering sacrifices to himself, though .,. . keeping no sabbath.”’ — Ado. 
Judcos, 2. 

‘* Those who were conversant with the old order of things have come 
to a new hope, no longer sabbatizing but living a life agreeably to the 
Lord’s Day.” —Ignatius, Magnes. 9; al. 3,3. See citation from the 
epistle ascribed to Barnabas in Ch. ITI. note 21. 

8 See Judaism, pp. 228 — 22y. 

4 See Judaism, pp. 234, 289, 240. On the different terms “ First 
Day,” ‘‘ Eighth Day,” ‘‘ Lord’s Day,” and ‘‘ Sunday,” see Judaism, pp. 
68 — 70. 

5 See Underworld Mission, pp. 80, 81; 3d edit. pp. 77, 78. The 
term sabbath as a designation for Sunday had no existence for centuries 
after the Christian era. Christians of the second and of several succeed- 
ing centuries would have spurned any one as recreant to the Master who 
had dared to treat the day of that Master’s victory over Death and the 
Underworld as the Jewish sabbath. 


§ 2.] SUNDAY AS A DAY OF RELIGIOUS GATHERINGS. 45 


led gradually to abstinence from any occupations which 
might distract attention from, or mar the effect of, these 
services. This doubtless was the chief reason for re- 
nouncing ordinary business, although Tertullian, the ear- 
liest writer who mentions such Sunday rest, attributes it 
to a different cause.® 

Eastern Christians, though equally attentive as Western 
ones to an erect position on Sunday, differed from them 
by showing a similar respect for the seventh day or sab- 
bath,’ a respect which sometimes awakened ire in their 
western and more anti-Jewish brethren.’ 





6 Tertullian says: ‘‘On the day of the Lord’s resurrection we ought 
not only to abstain from it [kneeling] but from every anxiety . . . de- 
ferring even business, lest we should afford opportunity to the Devil fof 
rendering us anxious].”— De Orat. 18. An anxious or clouded face 
would have been deemed derogatory to the Master's triumphal day. The 
Christians individually, and in legislative enactments, designated Sun- 
day as a festival, and subsequently needed perhaps on this account to 
guard the more against its devotion to public amusements. An extract 
or two are here added. Others can be found in Rheinwald’s Archeology, 
§61. In A. D. 321 an edict of Constantine (Cod. Justin. 3, 12, de 
Jeriis, 3), after forbidding lawsuits and mechanical arts on Sunday, per- 
mits harvesting. Somewhat later another edict (Cod. Theod. 2, 8, de 
feriis, 1) determines ‘‘ all should have liberty of emancipating on [our] 
FESTAL day.” The connection implies that Sunday is the day meant. 
The edicts will be found in the Corpes Juris Crviuis, Vol. 2, col. 
250. 

Those who favored resting on Sunday are careful to guard against any 
supposition that it is the sabbath. The Council of Laodicea says 
(c. 29) ‘‘ that it is not proper for any Christians . . . to avoid work on 
THE SABBATH, but . . . to show higher honor to the Lord’s Day IF they 
can avoid work.” 

7 The observance of both days is advocated in the Apostolic Con- 
stitutions, 7,23: ‘‘ We make festival days of the sabbath AND the 
Lord’s Day. The one as a remembrance of the creation, the other of the 
resurrection.” 

8 “As concerns kneeling also [our habits of] prayer suffer diversity 
through a certain few who on the sabbath [seventh day] abstain from 
kneeling. . . . The Lord will favorably grant either that they [the dis- 
sentients] give up, or that they practise their opinions without scandal- 


. 


46 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. Iv. 


If we turn to the Gospels we find no direction uttered 
by the Savior as to'the manner in which Sunday should 
be observed, or as to whether it should be observed at all. 
We find, also, no such terms as “Lord’s Day,” “Eighth 
Day,” or “Sunday,” but merely the Jewish term “First 
Day.” : 

§ 3. Hating of Blood. 


Among Jews a belief prevailed that the life or soul 
‘was in the blood, so that if the blood remained in cooked 
meat the life or soul would be eaten equally as the 
body... This. gave rise doubtless to the prohibition in 
Genesis,2—a prohibition which is deemed binding by 
Jews even at the present day,” and has been adopted in 
the Greek Church,!! a Church more influenced than the 
Latin one by Jewish views. 

Jewish Christians retained the belief. or prejudice in 
which they had been brought up.. The favorite argu- 
ment against the obligation of Gentiles to obey what 
were deemed Mosaic institutions did not apply to the 
present prohibition. When the Apostles and elders at 
Jerusalem debated this with other matters, there was (Acts 
15, 7) “much disputing.” Peter’s statement seems to have 
effected a decision that the Mosaic ritual law was not 
binding on Gentiles, but to this the following answer was 
obvious. If we assume that the Mosaic law is not bind- 
ing, how does that justify us in releasing Gentile Chris- 





izing others.” — Tertullian, De Orat. 18; al. 23. Compare, however, 
(in Rheinwald, p. 160, note 2) views of Tertullian, De Jejun. 14, after he 
became a Montanist. 

® * But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye 
not eat.” — Gen. 9, 4. 

10 Tf it be true that needless suffering is caused to slaughtered animals 
for the sake of freeing them from all blood, it could be wished that Jews 
might learn to regard the eating of blood in a different light. 

11 «The Eastern Church has continually preserved this abstinence 
{from blood], and preserves it even now.” — Routh, Reliqguie Sacre, 1, 
note on p. 343. 

12 See note 2, and in Ch. II. note 11. 


§ 3.] | EATING OF BLOOD. 47 


tians from an obligation which existed before the Mosaic 
law? The present precept was given before the time of 
Moses, and cannot therefore have been intended for Jews 
only. 

The Apostles and elders evidently did not see their way 
clear to meet this objection, and, in writing to the Gentile 
Christians, they include abstinence “from blood and from 
things strangled” as among necessary observances. 

The question caused sharp disputing among the early 
Christians, but in the Gospels we find no word concern- 
ing it. The statement of Jesus (Matt. 15, 11; Mark 7, 15), 
that a man is not defiled by what enters his mouth but by 
what proceeds from it, does not accord with the view that 


> 





18 “*Tt seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no 
greater burden than these NECESSARY things, That you abstain from 
meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and 
from fornication.” — Acts 15, 28, 29, The allusion to the Holy Spirit 
means probably that they INTERPRETED Peter’s vision as a communica- 
tion from God which justified them in Nor requiring from Gentiles an 
observance of the Mosaic ceremonial law, though they did not infer from 
it any exemption from other obligations, or supposed obligations, which 
they specify. 

In the Letter from the Churches of Lyons and Vienne it is said : 
** How should they [the Christians] —for whom it is not lawful to eat 
the blood of unreasoning animals— eat children?” — Routh, Relig. 
Sacre, 1, 304. Tertullian says: ‘‘ Your error [concerning] Christians 
should cause a blush, since we do not have even the blood of animals 
among our articles of food, since we abstain, moreover, from things 
strangled . . . lest we should be contaminated by any blood.” — Apol, 
9; Opp. pp. 10 D, 11 A. Clement of Alexandria says: ‘‘To human 
beings it is not lawful to touch blood, since to them the body is merely 
flesh, operated [vivified 7] by blood. Human blood participates in the 
logos [reason ?] and shares with the spirit the [Divine] favor.” — Padag. 
3, 25, al. 3; Opp. p. 267, edit. Potter. Minucius Felix also states (Octa- 
vius, 30, p. 154) that Christians do not reckon blood in their list of eat- 
ables. These writers, except Clement of Alexandria, belong to the 
semi-Jewish school of Christians. Origen mentions (cont. Cels. 8, 29) 
the letter of the Apostles and elders above cited, but prefixes to it the 
words of Jesus (Matt. 15, 11) that not the things which enter the mouth. 
but those which come out defile us, and the remark of Paul (1 Cor 8, 8) 


48 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY, [cH. Iv. 


blood in the food must be avoided, nor is it so specific on 
this point as it would have been made by the opposite 
party of Christians. , incites pigs z= 

§ 4. Baptism. 


The date when baptism originated is unknown. A 
question addressed to John the Baptist implies that it 
existed before his time. Probably Jewish belief in the 
uncleanliness of heathens had prompted the ablution of 
converts to Judaism, and this ablution came thus to be 
considered as an initiatory rite. 

Subsequently to the Savior’s ministry, when the Apos- 
tles were diffusing their Master’s religion, baptism seems 
to have been commonly administered to\those who ac- 
cepted their teachings. _ Whether it were the universal 
form of admission may be open to question, though 
admissions without it cannot have been numerous. We 
even find mention in one locality of vicarious baptism,® 
which implies that those who practised it must have 
imagined the rite a necessary one. 

In the second century baptism-seems to have been the 
generally accepted form of admission. Great importance 
and efficacy were attached to it. None but the baptized 
were, if we may credit Justin Martyr, admitted #* to the 





that food does not determine our acceptability to God. Augustine states 
(cont. Faustum, 32,13; Opp. 6, p. 200, col. 2 C) that the avoidance of 
things strangled and of blood had about died out in Gentile cliurches 
where there was no admixture of Jews. He may have referred specially 
to Latin ones. 

14 The question addressed to John (John 1, 25) is not concerning the 
meaning of baptism, but ‘‘ Wuy baptizest thou?” The questioners seem | 
to have been acquainted with baptism and to have wished information — 
merely as to why John practised it. 

15 Baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15, 29) indicates that some had been 
. baptized for their departed relatives or friends. 

16 **Tn what manner we have dedicated ourselves to God, being created 
anew through Christ, we will now relate. . . . As many as are persuaded 

. are led by us where there is water . . . are born again, for they 
perform this bathing . . . in the name of the Father of all things and 


§ 4.) 3 BAPTISM. ~ 49 


Lord’s Supper, which had already become something mys- 
terious; yet we find dissentients. 

“Those wretches excite questionings. They say, ‘ bap- 
tism is therefore unnecessary [for those] to whom faith is 
sufficient.’ ” 2” | 

If we now turn to the Gospels we find that although 
Jesus was baptized, yet the only baptism of those who 
followed him was performed by his disciples, not by him- 
self (John 4, 2), and there is no statement that this bap- 
tism was by his direction. Some dispute on the subject 
took place between John’s disciples and a Jew or Jews, 
the former of whom seem to have felt sore on the sub- 
ject. Thereupon Jesus left that section of country” 
and during the rest of his ministry not the slightest allu- 
sion is made in three of the Gospels to baptism #4 and but 
one mention of it in the remaining Gospel. That mention 
occurs in the following direction of Jesus :— “Go and 
make disciples of all nations [baptizing them into the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit] 
teaching them to observe all things which I have com- 
manded you.” 





Master-God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.” — 
Justin Martyr, Apo. 1, 61. 

‘** This nourishment is called among us the Eucharist, of which it is not 
permissible for any one to partake unless . . . bathed with the bathing 
for remission of sins and for regeneration.” — Justin Martyr, Apol. 1, 
66. Compare views of Hermas quoted in Underworld Mission, pp. 58, 
59 ; 3d edit. pp. 55-57. 

WY Tertullian, de Baptismo, 13. Tertullian’s opponents (de Baptismo, 
11) call attention to the fact that Jesus did not baptize. 

18 «* Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and 
the Jews, about purifying.” — John 3, 25. 

19 “* And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was 
with you beyond Jordan, to whom you bore testimony, behold, the same 
baptizeth, and all men come to him.” — John 3, 26. 

20 ** He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee.” — John 4, 3. 

_ 21 The concluding verses appended to Mark’s Gospel (16, 9-20) are 
known to be spurious. Compare on this subject Ch. XI. note 10. The 
Gospel as written by Mark ends with verse 8, 

22 Matt. 28, 19, 20. Compare Appendix, Note A,§15. The bap- 


50 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [oH. Iv. 


In this instance, and in this only, we have in one of 
the Gospels a custom of the second century unknown to 
the Apostolic Age. The question may arise whether the 
passage in brackets be not due to some marginal comment 
which has crept into the text; whether it be supposable 
that if Jesus had given such a direction the Apostles 
would have omitted to comply with, and teach obedience 
to it. Compare last line of page 86. 

The formula, whether it belongs or not to the text, 
originated earlier than the doctrine of the Trinity. We 
find it in Justin Martyr, who wrote half a century before 
any deification of the Spirit as a person.* He treats the 
formula as common at a date when, as may be inferred 
from his writings, the deification of Jesus was incipient 
or unknown. On its origin see Appendix, Note P. 


§ 5. The Lords Supper. 


Jesus at the close of his ministry, when partaking for 
the last time of a meal with those who had been com- 
panions of his ministry, asked them that when subse- 





tismal formula however, as it exists in Matthew, is not found in the 
Acts of Pilate. Did it originate later than that document ? 

%8 The formula in the Apostolic Age appears in the following passages : 
‘* They were baptized in THE NAME OF THE LorD JEsus.” — Acts 8, 
16. ‘*‘ He [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in THE NAME OF THE 
Lorp.” — Acts 10, 4s, ‘They were baptized in THE NAME OF THE 
Lorp Jesus.” — Acts 19,5. ‘‘Be baptized and wash away thy sins, 
calling on THE NAME OF THE Lorn.” — Acts 22, 16. ‘ 

24 At an earlier date than the one mentioned above; the Alexandrine 
Gnostics (concerning whom see Judaism, pp. 331-336) personified the 
Holy Spirit as an eon. Whether they regarded these eons as real beings 
may be doubted, but according to their statements Christ and the Holy 
Spirit were developed subsequently to Man and the Assembly. No 
thought, therefore, of deifying either can have had place in their minds, 
Neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit in their system belonged to the first 
or higher Ogdoad of the eons. See Norton’s Genwineness, 1st edit. 
Vol. 3, -pp. 113-130, and compare, in Judaism, a note on pp. 353, 
354. 





cH. V.] ’_ DESIGNATIONS FOR ‘GOD,20 =~ 51 


quently they were at any time together, they should, in 
remembrance of him, break bread and drink a cup of 
wine. 

In the second century we find that Christians, in copy- 
ing this custom, had mingled with it conceptions to which 
the Master nowhere alludes. Had they originated the 
Gospel narrative the simple request of Jesus would have 
worn a much more marvellous appearance 





3 - CHAPTER V. 
DESIGNATIONS FOR GOD. 


AmonG heathens the term god, equally as the term 
man, was a common noun, designating any or every god, 
but specifying no one in particular. If they wished to 
specify some one god they did so by using his name. 

Christians alleged, as already stated (see p. 36), that 
the Supreme Being was devoid of name: that he had no 
need of a name, since he had no equals from whom he 
needed to be distinguished. They said that he could not 
have a name because there was no one older than himself 
who could have named him.? 

_ In addressing heathens, however, the Christians found 
constant need of using some designation for the Supreme 
Being, which should prevent their words from being mis- 
applied to any other. Sometimes they termed him “the 
God without a name.”* In other instances they used 

1 See Judaism at Rome, pp. 2-4. 

2 See quotations in Underworld Mission, p. 152, note +; 3d edit. 
p. 146, note 5. Compare in the present work Ch. VIII. note 4. 

8 *Avwvipacros, Tatian, Orat. 4; Just. Mart. Apol. 1, 63, p. 262 CO. 
On this and other designations by Christians compare Judaism, p. 352, 
note 46. For designations used by Jews among heathens see Judaism, 
p. 4, note 4. ; . 





52 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [on. v. 


designations, several of which are subjoined with a slight 
attempt at classification. 

“The true God”; “Him who is really God”; “ the sole 
God”; “the unborn” or “ unoriginated God”; “the first 
God” ; “the ineffable God” or “the God not to be con- 
versed with.” 4 | 

“The Father of Justice”; “the Just Overseer”; “the 
God not to be swayed” nor “ bribed.” ® 

“The God free from suffering”; “the imperishable 
God”; “the ever-existing God” ; “the eternal God.” ® 

“The God of all things”; “the-Master-God ”; “The 
All-Ruler”; “King of the; Heavens”; “God over the 
world.” 7 es 

“The Creator”; “God the Maker”; “God, Maker of 





4 cds ddnOwbs, Justin Martyr, Apol. 1, 53, p. 242 C. 6 dvrws Beds, 
or eds Svrws dv, Just. Apol. 1,13, p. 164 E; Clem. Alex. Protrepit. 23, 
Paed. 1, 88, pp. 20, 150. dvrws pdvos dy, Clem. Alex. Paed. 1, 71, p. 140, 
beds ayévvnros, Cohort. ad Gracos, 22, p. 66 A; Just. Mart. Apol.1, 14, 
25, 49, 53, 2, 6, 12, 13, pp. 66 A, 164 B, 190 B, 234 B, 240 A, 296 D, 310 
C, 312 D; dyé7nros, Athenagoras, Legat. 4, 8, 22, pp. 20 B, 38 D, 
108 B. 6 rpGros Oeds, Just. Apol. 1, 60, p. 256 B. eds &ppyros, Just. 
Apol. 1, 9, 61, 2, 12, 13, pp. 154, D, 260 D, 310 C, 312 D. 

5 Tlarhp dixaoovvns, Just. Apol. 1, 6, p. 148 C. rév wdvrew érbarns 
Sixatos, Just. Apol. 2,12, p. 310 A. eds d&rperros, Just. Apol. 1, 13, 
p. 164 A. od6é dwpodoxnréos, Tatian, Orat. 4. 

6 Geds drabys, Just. Apol. 1, 25, p. 190 B ; Athenag. Legat. 8, p. 88D; 
Clem. Alex. Strom. 2, 40, p. 450. eds &pOapros, Just. Dial. 5, p. 28 D. 
Oeds dei Gv, Cohort. ad Gree. 22; Just. Apol. 1, 14, pp. 66 E, 164 A. 
didvos, Cohort. ad Greece. 22, p. 66 A (comp. 25, 26, pp. 74A B, 76 D); 
Athenag. Legat. 22. p. 108 B. 

7 Tév rdvrwv beds, Just. Apol. 1, 58, p. 252 A. 0eds cuprdvrwv, Clem. 
Alex. Paed. 1, 74, p. 142. ré&v b\w Beds, Strom. 2, 45, p. 453. Seomdrys 
or decrdgw Gebs, Just. Apol. 1, 12, 14, 32, 36, 40, 44, 46, 61 [bis], 2, &, 
pp. 162 A, 166 D, 206 C, 212 E, 218 A, 224 C, 230 D, 258 A D, 296 D. 
deorérns trav ddwv, Clem. Alex. Protrept. 10,96, p. 77; Tatian, Orat. 5. 
mwavroxpdrwp, Just. Dial. 16, 96, 139, 142, pp. 56 B, 328 A, 456 A, 462D; 
Clem. Alex. Paed. 1, 84; Strom. 4, 172, pp. 148, 641. Theophilus, ad 
Autol. 1, 4, p. 14D. Bacrreds rav otpavadr, Just. Apol. 2, 2, p. 288 C. 
imrép xdcpuov eds, Just. Dial. 60, p. 200 A. 


cH. Vv.) ‘v° DESIGNATIONS FOR GOD. = = 53 


the world” ; “ Maker of the universe” ; “ Architect [of the 
world].” ® 

“Parent of all things”; “Father of the universe”; 
“Father of things visible and invisible” ; “Father of the 
Heavens” or simply “the Father,’ -meaning “the Origi- 
nator” or sometimes, in accordance with Jewish usage, 
“the watchful Parent.” ® 

Possibly some heathen may have treated these epithets 
as equivalent to names, since a Christian writer parries 
any such view.® 

If we turn to the Gospels we find that the appellatives 
for the Deity are simply those which had been common 
among Jews in their intercourse with each other. They 
‘ghow no traces of Christian effort to prevent heathen 
misconception. 





8 Krioris, Just. Apol. 2,6, p. 296 D. eds drovjoas, Just. Apol. 1, 58, 
p. 252 B. Oeds rdv wdvra kdcuov roijoas, Just. Apol. 2, 5, p. 294 A. 
To Kionov mwovnrys, Athenag. Legat. 8 [bis], 10, pp. 88 D, 42 C, 48-50. 
6 ronrhs Tov mavrwv, Just. Apol. 1, 20, 58, 67, pp. 180 C, 252 A, 268 D. 
moinrns Tovde TOU mavrés, Just. Apol. 1, 26, p. 194 B, Athenag. Legat. 
4, 30, pp. 22 C, 160 D ; De Resurrect. 18, p. 262 D. eds Snuoupyés, Just. 


_  Apol. 1, 8, 13, 23, 26, 58, 63, pp. 152 A, 162 C, 186 C, 192 A, 252 A, 264 


B; Athenag. Zegat. 10, 13, pp. 48-50, 58 B; Clem. Alex. Paed. 1, 73, 
p. 141. 
. © Geds drdvruv yervirwp, Just. Apol. 1, 13, p. 164 A. warhp rv rdvrwr, 
Just. Apol. 1, 8, 12, 32, 40, 45, 46, 2,6, pp. 152 A, 162 A, 206 B, 218 A, 
228 D, 230 D, 296 D. sarhp rod wavrés, Athenag. Legat. 13, p. 58 B. 
marip tav ddwv, Just. Apol. 1, 44, 61 [bis] 63 [ter], 65, pp. 224 C, 258 A D, 
264 B C [bis], 266 D ; Clem. Alex. Paed. 1, 35, 68, 3, 40, pp. 129, 138, 
278. marip alcOnrév cal dopdrwr, Tatian, Orat. 4. mwarip tay ovpavay, 
Just. Apol, 2, 2, p. 288 C. 

10 «The terms Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and ees 
are not names, but appellations [derived] from his benefits and actions.” 
—Just. Mart, Apol, 2,6; Opp. 1, p. 296 D. 


54 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. VI. 


CHAPTER VI. 


TERMS APPLIED TO CHRISTIANS. 


§ 1. “AceBeis, Unbelievers. 


In the contest between Judaism and heathenism, and 
subsequently in that of Judaism and Christianity against 
heathenism, certain terms came into existence as des- 
ignations for those who had.given up heathenism. Dur- 
ing political embitterment the active use of these terms 
was such that we find them frequently occurring in his- 
toric literature. Had the Gospels been in process of 
formation during such times, it is hardly possible that 
some of these epithets should not have been mentioned, 
and that those deemed unjust should not have been con- 
demned. 

One of these terms was “Unbelievers.” We find it in 
active use at Rome when Jesus was yet teaching in Ju- 
dea, though then it can have applied only to monotheists, 
or their allies in the popular party. The aristocracy had 
endeavored by conspiracy and open revolt to overthrow 
Tiberius and crush the popular party. They had mur- 
dered many of its leaders and prominent members. When 
order was restored and the murderers were prosecuted 
for their crimes, they retorted with charges of Unbelief? 
If the prosecutor alleged: You murdered my brother or 
my relative, the answer was: You do not believe in the 
Gods; or, You do not believe in the divinity of Augustus. 
A notable instance of this has been given in the latter 
half of note 14 in Ch. II. The aristocracy subsequently 
resorted to the same charge against others, whenever they 
deemed it for their political interest so to do.2 Against 
Christians it was a common charge. 





1 For a fuller account see Judaism, p. 211, note 85, and for the politi- 
cal condition under which it occurred see the same work, pp. 531-534. 
2 See Judaism, pp. 7-10, 473-474, and 534, note 114. 


§§ 2, 3.] ATHEISTS. — CHRISTIANS, 55 


The term Unbeliever, or Unbelievers, does not occur 
in the Gospels. This would have been very improbable 
if they or any of them had been fabricated in Europe, or 
perhaps even in Asia, at a later date. 


§ 2. Atheists. 


Towards the close of the first century the term ATHE- 
ISTS came into use as a designation for Christians. The 
use of this term was not confined to Italy or to Europe, 
for we find it used by the Jewish aristocracy in Judea. 
A relative of the Emperor Domitian was put to death on 
a charge of Atheism; and Polycarp was asked to save his 
life» by saying, “ Destroy the Atheists.” The term must 
from the close of the first century have been actively in 
use as a designation for Christians, who of course earnestly 
denied the propriety of such usage.2 The term is not 
found in the Gospels. 


§ 3. Christians. 


The term CHRISTIANS‘ came into use already in Apos- 
tolic times, as a designation for the followers of Jesus. 
It must have been widely current both in Europe and 
Asia before the last quarter of the first century. 

Heathens sometimes altered the word Christos or Chris- 

tus, Christ, to Chrestos and Chrestus, a term to which 
Clement of Alexandria gives an ethical meaning of his 
own and to which others objected. 
_ Neither of these terms occurs in the Gospels; their 
absence would be very remarkable were the Gospels fab- 
ricated in the second century, or even at the close ot 
the first. 





8 See citations from different writers in Judaism, pp. 473, 474, foot- 
notes 52-57. 

4 «The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” —Acts 11, 
26. “Then Agrippa said to Paul: You almost persuade me to become a 
Christian.” — Acts 26,28. ‘‘Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let 
him not be ashamed.” — 1 Peter 4, 16. 

5 See Judaism, Ch. VIII. note 136. 


56 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. (cH, vit 


§ 4. Third Race. 


Christians occasionally spoke of themselves as a new, 
or distinct race,® meaning to distinguish themselves from 
Jews and heathens. This prompted heathens to desig- 
nate and persecute them as a “Third Race.’ No such 
term or allusion to it occurs in the Gospels, 





CHAPTER VII. 


TERMS USED BY CHRISTIANS. 
§ 1. ’"AceRis, aceBea, dvouos, GVO pia. 


CHRISTIANS equally with Jews, when brought into con- 
tact with Gentiles, needed terms to express the various 
classes of the latter. They designated a heathen as 
doeBns, an Unbeliever. Heathenism they termed do¢Beua, 
Unbelief, or non-recognition of God. By dvouos, Law-less, 
they understood a heathen, or a Monotheist who did not 
accept the ceremonial law; and by dvoyuia, Law-lessness, 
the non-acceptance of this law. This special sense of the 
words Jaw-less and law-lessness did not of course prevent — 
their being used in their common signification of a trans- 
gressor and transgression. 

These terms were in use, the first two in common use, 





6 Peter uses it (1 Pet. 2, 9)in connection with nation and people, as 
one of several designations for Christians. See other uses of it in Juda- 
ism, p. 474. ‘Tertullian stoutly objects to it. ‘‘ Have Christians a dif- 


ferent kind of teeth, or a different opening for their jaws? . . . We are 
called a third race, —dog-tailed, perhaps, or shadow-footed, or it may 
be Antipodes from below the earth. . . . Ridiculous madness. . . . But 


we are deemed a third race because of our religion not of our national 
origin as Romans or Jews.” — Ad Nat. 1,7, 8; p. 53 A D, edit. Rigault. 
Elsewhere he speaks of the heathen with their circus ; ‘‘ Where they can 
readily cry out, how long to the third race ?” — Scorpiace, 10, p. 628 B. 


§§2,3.] © TERMS USED BY CHRISTIANS. ~ bys 


among Christians outside of Judea, and are not infre- 
quent in the Apostolic writings! In the Gospels the 
first two do not occur, nor in the sense above mentioned 
is either of the latter to be found? This would be dif- 
ficult to account for, at least as regards the first two, if 
the Gospels were anything different from what they pro- 
fess to be, honest records of events in Judea. 


. 


§ 2. SeBopuevos, poBovpevos. 


These terms were common ones among Jews and Chris- 
tians, resident in heathen communities, to designate a 
‘CONVERT to the belief in one God. The former of them 
does not occur in the Gospels, and the latter, though 
occurring twice in Luke (1, 50; 18,2), is nowhere in the 
Gospels used in this peculiar sense. 


§ 3. EvacBea, evoeBns. 


Jews and Christians used the above terms to designate 
practical-monotheism and a practical Monotheist,s one 
who lived in accordance with his obligation. to God. 
‘These terms were common outside of Judea, and appear 
several times in the Apostolic writings,> but are un- 
known to the Gospels. 





_ 1’ AceBis, Rom. 4,5, 5, 6; 1 Tim. 1,9; 1 Peter 4,18; 2 Peter 2,5, 
3,7; Jude, 4,15. “AcéBea, Rom. 1, 18, 11, 26; 2 Tim. 2, 16; Tit. 2, 
12; Jude, 15, 18.  “Avouos, Acts 2, 23; 1 Cor. 9, 21; 2 Thess. 2, 8; 
1Tim. 1,9; 2 Peter 2, 8. ‘Avouia, Rom. 4,7. On the use of this 
word see Judaism, pp. 467, 468. 
_ 2 In Mark 15, 28, and Luke 22, 37, is the quotation from Isaiah 
(53, 12) ‘‘He was reckoned with the Law-less,” meaning apparently with 
transgressors, a use of the word different from that above noted. *Avopla 
occurs four times in Matthew, but nowhere in the specific sense above 
mentioned. 

8 See quotations in Judaism, p. 471. 

# See quotations in Judaism, pp. 465-467, 
_ 5 EioéBe, Acts 3, 12; 1 Tim. 2, 2; 3, 16; 4, 7,8; 6, 3, 5, 6, 11; 
2 Tim. 3,5; Tit. 1, 1; 2 Pet. 1, 3, 6, 7, 3,11. EvceBs, Acts 10, 2, 7; 
22, 12; 2 Pet. 2,9. 


58 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. vit. 


Closely related to the foregoing is the verb «io«feiy, to 
monotheize-practically, and the adverb cio«Bas, practically 
monotheistic, which occur with sufficient frequency in 
Christian writers to strengthen the argument somewhat 
by their non-appearance in the Gospels. 


§ 4. OcocéBeia, OeoceBns. 


These words with some of their cognates appear fre- 
quently in Christian writings of the second and third 
centuries,® so that their absence from the Gospels, with 
the one exception noted below,’ would have been unlikely 
if they had been written or in course of accretion dur- 
ing the second century. The argument is less applicable 
to the Apostolic Age, because at that date the question 
of etc¢Be, practical-monotheism, that is, the question 
whether a man could PRACTICALLY recognize God without 
becoming a Jew, overlaid, as a subject of discussion, any 
question of mere conversion to monotheism. 


§ 5. "Aderdoi, Eevor, mavtes. 


The first of these words, Brethren, came into use, at 
least among Jewish Christians, in the Apostolic Age to 
denote their fellow-Christians of Jewish origin. The 
second, Foreigners, was used to denote Christians of Gen- 
tile descent. The third term, Al/ Men, was a designation > 
for both classes, namely, Jews and Gentiles. In some 





6 See Judaism, pp. 460-465. 

7 In the Gospel of John (9, 31) GeoceBis is represented as used by one 
who had been cured of blindness. Jesus is nowhere said to have uttered 
a word concerning OeoceBeis, large as was this class of believers in God 
outside of Judea. 

8 See Judaism, p. 255, note 211, 9 Ibid. 

10 Rom. 3, 22, 23; 5, 12, 18; Gal. 3,28; 8 John, 12. The Cohortatio 
ad Grecos (c. 14) contrasts the words Monotheists and A/7 Men. Under 
the latter term its author intended to include reputed heathens. He 
may have had in mind Stoics, but more probably referred to the writers 
of certain Jewish documents temporarily in circulation with a professedly 
heathen authorship. On these documents, see Judaism, pp. 336-342, 


§6.].-—~:«TERMS USED BY CHRISTIANS, ~ 59 


cases it meant only such of these as had become Chris- 
tians, though it is also used to designate non-Christians, 
whether Jew or Gentile. 

In the peculiar sense above mentioned these words do 
not occur in the Gospels. 


§ 6. Aixaor, Just Men. 


This was a term for those who, prior to the time of 
Moses, or else prior to the time of Abraham, were said 
to have been acceptable to God. Two ages, or eras, of 
Just Men were recognized. In Irenzeus these ages may 
have been from Adam to Noah and from Noah to Abra- 
ham. He uses the word patriarchs for those acceptable 
to God during the period from Abraham to Moses,” and 
the term prophets for subsequent teachers in the old dis- - 
Prenton. 

In Justin Martyr™® and in Hermas" the first age of 
Just Men must mean those from Adam to Abraham, who 
were deemed just without circumcision, and the second 
age those from Abraham to Moses who, though circum- 
cised, did not observe the Mosaic Law. 





11 See Underworld Mission, 3d edit., pp. 5, 9, 11, 12, 21. 

22 “The whole remaining multitude of those who prior to Abraham 
were Just, and of those patriarchs who lived prior to Moses, were justified 
without the things already mentioned and without the Mosaic Law.” — 
Irenzeus, cont. Heres. 4,16, 2. Compare citation in Ch. II. note 11, 
where the second age of the world commences with Noah. 

The ‘‘ things already mentioned” mean circumcision and the sabbath, 
yet Irenzeus inconsistently identifies (4, 15, 1) the Decalogue (which 
commands observance of the sabbath) with the ‘‘ natural precepts which 
from the beginning God implanted in men,” and speaks of precepts or a 
covenant (3, 11, 8) given through Noah. Compare 4, 16, 3. The cove: 
nant through Noah was, according to his Greek text, the first of four; 
the second being through Abraham, the third through Moses, and the 
fourth through Jesus. 

18 The distinction of Just Men into two ages seems distinctly implied 
in Justin’s Dialogue, 27, cited in Ch. II. note 11, ough I believe that 
he nowhere uses the phrase ‘‘two ages of Just Men.” 

14 Compare Similitude, 9, 3, withits explanation in 9, 15, both cited in 
Underworld Mission, p. 58; 8d edit. p. 56. 


60 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. VII. 


In the Gospels the term Just Men occurs once (Matt. 
13, 17), but without being used in a controversial sense. 
Not only is it there unopposed to those under the Law, 
but it is grouped with vets as if they were parts of one 
whole. 

§ 7. Jesus Christ. 


_ While Jesus taught in Judea the question was debated 
whether he were the Christ. This term had not yet been 
conjoined to the word Jesus as part of one name. In 
the Gospels the Master is almost universally called 
Jesus, a term which occurs more than six hundred 
times® If the word Christ be at any time employed 
it is as an official title, usually with the prefix THE,® 
and we also find Jesus THE Christ.’ The exceptions ® 
confirm, rather than militate against, the inference to be 
drawn from this usage. 





16 In the Glasgow edition of Schmidt’s Concordance the word Jesus, 
as quoted from the Gospels, occupies more than eleven and one half 
columns, and occurs about fifty-four times in each column. 

16 Matt. 1,17; 2,4; 11,2; 16,16; 22, 42; 23,8, 10; 24,5, 23; 26, 
63, Mark 8, 29; 12, 5 13, 2 ; 14, 61; 15, 32. Luke 2, 26; 3, 15; 
4, 41 (bis) ; 9,20; 22, 67; 23, 35, 39 Ton 1, 20, 25, 41; 3, 28; 4, 25, 
29, 42; 6, 69; 7, 26, 27, 31, 41 (bis), 42; 10, 24; 11, 27; 12, 34; 20, 31. 
In all these passages the article is in the Greek text prefixed. 

In the following four instances the article is omitted, but the word - 
Christ is nevertheless used as an official title. ‘‘ A Savior who is [the] 
Christ, [the] Lord.” —Luke 2, 11. ‘We found this man. . . alleg- 
ing himself to be [the] Christ, [who is a] king.” —Luke 23,2. “If 
any one should acknowledge him [as the] Christ.” —John 9, 22. 
‘That they know Thee [as] the only true God, and thine envoy Jesus 
[as the] Christ.” — John 17, 3. 

17 Matt. 16, 20. 

18 The exceptions will be better understood by classification under two 

heads, those which pertain to the ministry of Jesus and those which do 
not. To the former class belong two passages. 
_ Mark 9, 41: ‘‘ Whoever shall give you a drink of water in my name 
[because you are Christ's] I say to you in truth he shall not lose his re- 
ward.” The question may be raised whether the bracketed words have 
been added in after times as an explanation. If so, they have in some 
authorities displaced part of those which precede them. 


§1.] - PUBLIC GAMES, ~~ 61 


Had the Gospels been written, either in Apostolic or 

st-Apostolic times, by persons not conversant closely 
with the history of Jesus, the phraseology of these times 
would inevitably have been applied to the Master. Jesus 
Christ would have been a customary term. 





CHAPTER VIII. 
MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS. 
§ 1. Public Games. ° 


In those provinces of the Roman Empire which were 
under control, not of the prince, but of the senate, public 
games were a common occurrence. In the western por- 
tion of the Empire, that is, in Italy, Gaul, North Africa 
(which must not be understood as including North Egypt), 
and perhaps in Greece and Spain, these barbarous amuse- 
ments involved frequent destruction of human life, and 
were in some cases the means by which a political party 
in power wreaked its malignity on some of its opponents. 
Probably in Asia Minor and Syria the strong influence 
which the Jews exercised may have mitigated these bar- 
barities. Public opinion may there and in North Egypt 
have condemned sacrifice of life for human amusement, 
and have rendered the Games comparatively harmless. 
Yet even these countries, or such of them as were under 
immediate control of the senate, were at times heavily 
taxed to furnish the pecuniary means for perpetrating 


> 





John 1,17: “‘ Favor and truth came through Jesus Christ.” John 
speaks this in his own person. He wrote when old, and when the term 
Jesus Christ had become familiar as a name. 

To the second class belong three passages, only one of which, if any, 
proceeded from an evangelist. They are Matt. 1, 1, 18 (concerning which 
see Appendix, Note N) and the heading of Mark’s Gospel, 1,1. These 
show how prone Christians would have been to use Christ as a name 
when not recording his actual history. 


62 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.  ([cH. vim. 


these barbarities on a grand scale elsewhere.1 We find 
that such games, in a milder form perhaps, were being 
exhibited at Ephesus when Paul was there.” 

At a later date in letters from Rome during Paul’s first 
and second imprisonment, we find allusions to these 
games, prompted perhaps by some of them which had 
taken place in Italy. 

In post-Apostolic writers we not infrequently find men- 





1 See in Judaism, p. 72, mention of the Adilitian tribute from which 
Cicero’s brother had relieved the provincials. 

2 The Asiarchs mentioned (Acts 19, 31) were officers from different 
localities who superintended, or gave at their own expense, these games. 
Their presence at Ephesus renders it highly probable that the games were 
in course of exhibition when Paul was there. We find in a letter which 
he wrote at this date three or four allusions to, or illustrations taken 
from, the public games. Paley might have added to his Hore Pauline 
this coincidence between the Acts and Paul’s epistles. Asiarchs is in 
the common version not very expressively:pendered by ‘‘ chief of Asia.” 

Paul’s allusions to the public games are as follows : ‘‘ Know ye not, that 
of those who run in the race-course all run, but one receiveth the prize ? 
Thus run, that ye may obtain. Andevery one who contendeth in the 
games is temperate in all things ; they, however, to obtain a perishable. 
crown, but we an imperishable. I therefore so run, not as one uncer- 
tain ; I so fight, not as one striking the air.” —1 Cor. 9, 24-26 ; Noyes’ 
trans. ‘‘If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at 
Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and | 
drink ; for to-morrow we die.”” —1 Cor. 15, 32. ‘I think that God has 
exhibited us apostles last as [those in the public games] condemned to 
death.” —1 Cor. 4, 9. 

8 The Epistle to the Ephesians was written during Paul’s first impris- 
onment at Rome. In it is the statement, ‘‘ We wrestle not against flesh 
and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the world- 
rulers of this darkness,” — Ephes. 6, 12. Again: In the Epistle to the 
Philippians: ‘‘ Forgetting the things behind, and straining towards 
those before, I press toward the goal — the prize of the upward call from 
God through Christ Jesus.” — 3, 13, 14. 

The Writer to the Hebrews borrows also asimile from these games. 
‘* Seeing we also are encompassed by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us 
lay aside every weight, and the sin which [like a cloak] might so easily 
entangle us, and let us run with endurance the race lying before us.” — 
Le 


§1.] | PUBLIC GAMES. 63 


tion of, or illustrations taken from, these games.* Chris- 
tians were often sacrificed in them either by being pitted 
against wild beasts or in some other way. It would even 
seem that in the time of Claudius and Marc Antonine 
lions had been taught to slowly mangle their victims. 
At least the historian’s language presents no intelligible 
meaning except this.° 

In the Gospels we find from the Teacher of teachers no 
word on the subject of these games; no condemnation of 
them as barbarities ; no answer put into the mouth of his 
followers, which might aid them in escaping; no word of 
encouragement to assist them in enduring these atrocities. 





The second Epistle to Timothy was written during Paul’s second im- 
prisonment. In it he says, ‘‘ If a man contend in the games, he is not 
crowned, unless he contend lawfully.” —2 Tim. 2, 5. 

4 See Clem. Alex. Strom. 2, 110, cited in Underworld Mission, p. 97 ; 
3d edit. p. 93. Even Christ is termed (Doct. Orient. § 58) ‘‘ mighty 
athlete,” and in Letter from Lyons and Vienne (Routh, Relig. Sac. 
1, 311; Euseb. Zee. Hist. Vol. 2, 23, ed. Heinich.) ‘‘ mighty and irre- 
sistible athlete.” This letter is mainly devoted to an account of barbari- 
ties practised against Christians in that neighborhood during the public 
games. Among other atrocities mention is made (Euseb. Ecc. Hist., 
Vol. 2, p. 32, edit. Heinichen) of a Christian woman enclosed in a net 
and exposed for a bull to toss as an amusement to the brutal spectators. 
Compare in Judaism, p. 335, note 10, mention from the same letter of 
ahother victim. The question whether God (cp. Ch. III. § 11) were 
devoid of name seems to have been among test questions addressed to 
Christians. ‘ Attalus, . . . being asked what name God has, answered : 
God has not aname like a human being.” — Busebius, Lec. Hist. 5,1; 
Vol. 2, p. 29, ed. Heinich. Tertullian devotes a treatise, de Spectaculis, 
to the subject of public games. 

5 See Dio Cass. 60, 13, 71, 29, quoted in Judaism, pp. 75, 361. Dur- 
ing the reign of Tiberius public butcheries in the games were not allowed. 
Under Caligula, probably during his illness, one such occurrence took 
place which caused him to abolish the games and to utter an earnest re- 
proof to those who had been willing witnesses of such doings. It must 
have been the public opinion cultivated during these two reigns, which 
compelled Claudius to have the lion killed. Mare Antonine was a better 
man than Claudius, so that his permission for the torture and murder of 
human beings by a trained lion implies a degeneracy and growth of bar- 
barism at Rome between A. D. 41 and A. D. 161. 


64 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. VII. 


§ 2. Slavery. 


Slavery among the Jews must have been confined to 
the households of a few among their princes or rulers, 
In heathen or semi-heathen lands it was common, and at 
Rome it existed in an aggravated form so as to force itself 
constantly on public attention.® 

In the Epistles we find references to slavery,’ though 
perhaps fewer than would have occurred had not Apos- 
tolic teaching found its chief supply of converts among 
the partly monotheized Greeks, rather than among the 
Latins. 

In the Gospels Jesus is nowhere represented as lay- 





6 See Judaism, pp. 86-89, 172 note 86, 315 note 109, 320 note 124, 
455 note 180. A Roman law required, in case of a master being mur- 
dered, that all his slaves, innocent or guilty, should be executed. Such 
an atrocity took place in A. D. 61 (see Judaism, p. 88), though not 
without opposition from the people. Plutarch mentions (Judaism, 
p- 806) a law, probably of Domitian, that a slave, by giving up claim to 
freedom, could demand sale and change of master. Hadrian transferred 
to the Courts (Judaism, p. 325) the —under Trajan grossly abused — 
capital power of masters over slaves. 

7 * Are you called being a bondman, do not feel concerned, but, more- 
over, if you can become free prefer to serve.” —1 Cor. 7, 21. The con- 
clusion admits an opposite translation, — ‘‘ Avail yourself of the opportun- 
ity.” ‘‘Bondmen, be obedient to them that are your masters according 
to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto 
Christ.” — Ephes. 6, 5. ‘* Bondmen, obey in all things your masters 
according to the flesh ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but in 
singleness of heart, fearing God.” —Coloss. 3, 22. ‘‘ Masters, give 
unto your bondmen that which is just and equal; knowing that you 
also have a Master in heaven.” — Coloss. 4,1. ‘‘ Let as many bond- 
men as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, 
that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” — 1 Tim. 
6,1. ‘‘Exhort bondmen to be obedient unto their own masters, and 
to please them well in all things ; not answering again.” — Titus 2, 9. 
The Epistle to Philemon was specially written with reference (see verses 
10-21) to the bondman who carried it. ‘‘ Slaves of the household, be 
subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, 
but also to the froward.” — 1 Peter 2, 18. 

In the foregoing the word translated bondman usually designates one 
who is so born. 


§ 3.] | TWO WARS, 65 


ing down rules for the relation between master and slave, 
or as teaching specially either the permissibility or the 
wrongfulness of slavery. Three times in them we find 
the recorded mention of a born bondman or bondmen, 
SotAos, SotAc,8 but no mention of, or allusion to, évdpdmrodor, 
one who has been made a slave, large as was this un- 
happy class among heathens. 


§ 3. Two Wars. 


In the history of Judea during the first and second 
centuries we find two wars, one beginning in the reign 
of Nero, and the other in that of Hadrian, which could 
scarcely have escaped mention in the Gospels if these 
had been fabrications or accretions during this period. 
No gift was more lauded by public opinion than the 
capacity of foretelling future events, and persons in pre- 
paring a fictitious narrative would almost assuredly have 
put into the mouth of Jesus predictions as to the course 
and termination of both contests. In the former of these 
wars the temple was destroyed® Immediately before, or 
during, the latter a temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was 
placed on its site.1° 7 





_ § Jesus is represented as curing the bondman of a centurion. Matt. 
8, 5-13. Compare Luke 7,2-10. A nobleman is represented as being 
told by his bondmen that his son had recovered. John 4,51. Two 
bondmen of the high priest are also mentioned. John 18, 10, 26. Com- 
pare Matt. 26, 51, Mark 14, 47, Luke 22, 50. 

9 According to Josephus (Wars, 6, 4, 5), it was burned, the burning 
being due to the’ unauthorized act of an individual soldier contrary to 
the will of Titus. According to Orosius, 7, 9 (cited in Ch. IX. note 2), 
Titus had it destroyed AFTER BEING DECLARED EMPEROR by the army. 
Any such declaration — placing him in antagonism to his father — must 
have come from the patrician element, which was to be found more among 
the officers than among the soldiers. A statement by Josephus (Wars, 
6, 4, 7) that Titus with his officers entered the Holy of Holies, accords 
best with the last-mentioned narrative. Titus, even if reluctant to 
destroy the temple, was easily swayed by patricians, so as usually to 
become their tool. Compare Sibyl. Orac. 1, 393, 394, quoted in Appen- 
dix, Note J. No. 1. 

1) See Judaism, pp. 325, 326. 


66 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. _ [cH. Vmt. 


§ 4. Philosophy. 


In the Greek-speaking countries where Judaism had 
preceded Christianity, the term Philosophy frequently 
designated love of moral wisdom, a use of the term 
which was carried by the Stoics and their disciples into 
Europe! The same term was used for mental specula- 
tions of various kinds. 

In the former of these significations Clement of Alex- 
andria doubtless uses it when he speaks of Philoso- 
phy as a schoolmaster,” preparing the Greeks as the 
Law did the Jews for Christianity. The different senses 
of the word were often confused by undiscriminating 
minds, 

Christians were divided in their views as to the origin 
of Philosophy. Some thought that it came from the 
Devil; others that it came from the Deity. The respec- 





11 See Judaism, p. 49 n. 

12 “ We should not err in saying that Philosophy was given to the 
Greeks, especially as a ‘Testament’ [or ‘covenant’] of their own, it 
being a basis of the philosophy which is according to Christ.’”” — Clem. 
Alex. Strom. 6, 67 ; Opp. 3,138. Clement quotes as words of the Deity 
the passage (Jer. 31, 31, 32; Heb. 8,8, 9): ‘‘ ‘ J appoint you a new cove- 
nant [testament], not as I appointed to your fathers in Mount Horeb.’ He 
appointed a new one to you [Christians], since those of the Greeks and 
Jews were antiquated.” — Strom. 6, 41; Opp. 3,122. ‘‘ Justly there- 
fore the Law [was given] to the Jews but Philosophy to the Greeks until 
the coming [of Christ].” — Strom. 6, 159; Opp. 3, 198. 

**Those who proclaim the atheism of Epicurus and pleasure [as life’s 
object], and whatever else contrary to true teaching has been ‘sowed in 
Grecian philosophy, are spurious fruits of an agriculture divinely given 
to the Greeks.” — Strom. 6, 67, (al. 8); Opp. p. 774. 

18 ¢* Let those who say that Philosophy proceeds from the Devil under- 
stand what the Scripture says, that the Devil transforms himself into an 
angel of light. . . . But if he teaches as an angel of light, he speaks what 
is true.” — Clem. Alex. Strom. 6, 66; Opp. p. 773. ‘‘Those who say 
that Philosophy is not from God incur danger.” — Strom. 6, 156; Opp. 
p. 821. ‘Greek Philosophy, as some [think], is accidentally, somehow, 
possessed of the truth faintly.and imperfectly, and as others will have it, 
is prompted by the Devil.” — Strom. 1, 80; Opp. p. 366. ‘‘Some think 
that from an evil man [or the evil one] Philosophy has crept into life for 
the ruin of men,” — Strom. 1, 18; Opp. p. 326, Potter’s edition. 


Sipe Ss PHILOSOPHY. — | 67 


tive antiquity of Jewish and heathen views mingled with 
this debate. Greek Philosophy was alleged to have been 
pirated from Judaism.* Much of the dispute as to 
whether this Philosophy came from God or the Devil 
may have been due to difference in the disputants as to 
the kind of teaching which they intended to designate. 
We find allusions to philosophy in the Apostolic ” and 
early Christian writings,!® but not in the Gospels. Jesus 





14 ‘¢ All things concerning immortality of the soul or punishment after 
death . .. which Philosophers and poets spoke they were enabled to 
understand by taking their leading ideas from the Prophets.” — Justin 
Martyr, Apol. 1,44. ‘The poets and philosophers stole from the Sa- 
ered Scriptures.” — Theophilus, ad Avtol. 1, 14. ‘They [the heathen 
writers] uttered what accords with the Prophets, though they were 
much later and stole these things from the Law and the Prophets.” — 
Ad Autol. 2, 37. ‘* Moses is manifestly older than the aforesaid old 
heroes, wars, demons, and we should trust the older rather than those 
Greeks who have from his fountain unintelligently drawn his teachings.” 
—Tatian, Orat. 40. ‘‘For they [your teachers] were necessitated by 
the divine foreknowledge of the [prophetic] men to speak though unwill- 
ingly concerning us, especially those who had been in Egypt and been 
profited by the monotheism of Moses and his ancestors.” — Cohort. ad 
Greecos, 14. Clement says: ‘‘ We may show that the Hebrew Philos- 
ophy is older by many generations [than the Greek].” — Strom. 1, 64 ; 
Opp. p. 353. ** Philo, the Pythagorean, shows that of all these [previously 
mentioned] the Jewish race is by much the oldest, and written Philoso- 
phy among them much preceded that of the Greeks.” — Strom. 1, 72 ; 
Opp. p. 360. ‘* Of these things the Greek Philosophers were the steal- 
ers and plunderers, taking before the Lord’s coming from the Hebrew 
Prophets part of the truth, not intelligently.” — Strom. 1, 87; Opp. 
p. 369. ‘Concerning the tenets of Philosophers having been cunningly 
put together from those of the Hebrews, we shall, after a little, treat 
in detail, but now must speak of the times after Moses, through which 
will be shown beyond question that of all wisdom the Hebrew Philosophy 
is the oldest.” — Strom. 1, 101; Opp. p. 378, Potter’s edition. 

16 “©The Greeks seek after wisdom.” —1 Cor. 1, 22. ‘‘ Then certain 
philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoics, encountered him.” — 
Acts 17, is. 

16 Justin Martyr wore a philosopher’s cloak, and, on the title-page 
of his writings, the term ‘‘ philosopher” is appended to his name. He 
tells us : *‘ Philosophy is in reality the greatest acquirement and most 


68 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.  [cu. vm. 


is nowhere represented as saying a word for or against it. 
He neither commends it to his disciples as coming from 
God nor cautions them against it as an invention of the 
Devil. 

Two different sects of philosophers are mentioned by 
name once in the Apostolic,” and, with others, frequently 
in early Christian, writings,’ but no mention of them by 
Jesus is found in the Gospels. ' 





honored by God, to whom it alone leads and unites us.” — Dial. 2; Opp. 
2,p.8C. ‘This [predicted Christian] Philosophy alone I found safe 
and profitable.” — Dial. 8; Opp. 2, p. 32 C. edit. Otto. 

‘‘Plato thinks that there are Philosophers among Barbarians [i. e. 
non-Grecians], but Epicurus conceives that only Greeks can philoso- 
phize.” — Clem. Alex. Strom. 1,67; Opp. p. 355. ‘‘ As children dread 
hobgoblins, thus the multitude dread Grecian Philosophy, fearing lest it 
should carry them off.” — Strom. 6, 80; Opp. p. 780. 

‘‘The authority of Physical Philosophers gives protection as being a 
possession of wisdom. ‘Truly the wisdom of philosophers is unadulter- 
ated, whose weakness is in the first place attested by the variety of their 
opinions proceeding from their ignorance of the truth. But who can be 
wise if devoid of truth, if he does not know God, the Father and Lord 
of wisdom and truth?” — Tertullian, ad Nat. 2,2; Opp. p. 65 A. 
These citations, and those which have been given in notes 12, 13, 14, are 
but a small portion of what appear in the early Christian writers. 

17 See note 15. ' 

18 The names of one or more of the Philosophic sects, Stoics, Epicu- 
reans, Eleatics, Platonics, Peripatetics, Pythagoreans, and others appear 
in Cohort. ad Grecos, 4; Just. Mart. Apol. 1, 20 (twice), 2, 7 (twice), 
Dial. 2 (five times), Opp. 1, pp. 22 A; 180'C, 298 D E, 300 A B, 310 E, 
2,8C EA, 10 BD; Tatian, Orat. 9; Athenagoras, Supplicat. 6, 19, 
22 (twice) ; Theophilus, ad Autol. 2, 4, 3,5, 6; Clem. Alex. Protrept. 66 
(al. 5 twice) ; Strom. 1, 51, 62, 63, 64 (al. 11, 14 three times), 2, 19, 34, 54, 
101, 129, 138 twice (al. 4, 7, 12, 19, 21, 23 twice), 3, 24 (al. 3), 4, 19, 28, 123 
twice (al. 5, 6, 19 twice), 5, 9, 58, 59, 60, 90, 93, 94, 96, 98, 101, 106, 140 
(al. 1, 9 three times, 14 eight times), 6, 27, 139 (a7. 2, 16), '7, 37, 88 (al. 7, 
14), 8, 4, 10 twice (al. 2, 4 twice), Opp. pp. 58 bis, 346, 352, 353 bis, 
438, 447, 458, 482, 497, 503 bis, 521, 572, 575, 618, 619, 649, 680 bis, 
681, 699, 701, 702, 703, 705, 708, 712, 732, 752, 811, 852, 886, 915, 
920 ; Potter’s edition. In Origen, there are, according to the Index of 
de la Rue, thirty-five references to the Stoics, six to the Epicureans,. 
fifteen to the Platonists, and sixteen to the Pythagoreans. The works of 


§ 5.] . - DRESS. 69 


§ 5. Dress. 


When Christianity spread outside of Judea it came in 
contact with Greek and Roman society equally as with 
the Jewish. Wealthy heathens were often addicted to 
outside display, and this tendency was not held in check 
among them, as among Jews, by a sense of responsi- 
bility to God, or by correct views as to the object of 
life.” We find in the Apostolic times that a word of 
caution is given on the subject of Dress, beth by Paul #4 
and by Peter,” and fuller attention is given to it by Chris- 
tian authors of a subsequent date.” 





Tertullian, according to Semler’s Index, mention the Stoics five times 
and the Epicureans five times. 

Besides the foregoing the leaders or disciples of the different philo- 
sophical sects are mentioned, or in some writers quoted, even more fre- 
quently than the sects themselves. Compare note 53. 

19 See in Judaism (p. 455, note 130) the remarks of Dio Chrysostom. 

The remarks of Dio Cassius (57, 11) cited in Judaism, p. 509, imply that 
the absence of display commended in Tiberius was something unusual. 
_ Pliny Senior mentions (Nat. Hist. 33,19, 5) that he stood near Agrip- 
pina when she wore a cape woven of gold without admixture of other 
material. This was during the naval battle on Lake Fucinus (Tacitus, 
An. 12, 56), where persons obnoxious to the party in power were com- 
pelled to murder each other for the gratification of their enemies. It is 
little to Pliny’s credit, considering his earlier friendships (see remarks on 
Pomponius in Judaism, pp. 209-211), that he should have been present 
at the scene. 

20 The term heathens must not be understood as including a large class 
of Gentile monotheists, whose sense of responsibility to God and whose 
views of life may sometimes have compared favorably with those of their 
Jewish brethren. — 

21 «‘7In like manner also, that women, in seemly attire, adorn them- 

selves with modesty and sobriety, not with braided hair, and gold, or 
pearls, or costly apparel ; but, as becometh women professing monothe- 
ism, with good works.” — 1 Tim. 2, 9, 10, Noyes’ trans. altered. 
_ 22 “Whose adorning, let it not be the outward adorning of braiding 
the hair, and of wearing golden ornaments, or of putting on apparel ; 
but the hidden being of the heart in the imperishable [adornment] of a 
meek and quiet spirit which is in the sight of God a costly [adornment].” 
—1 Peter 3, 3, 4, Noyes’ trans. altered. 

#8 Tertullian wrote two works concerning woman’s dress, and one on 


70 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.  [cu. vm. 


Had Christians outside of Judea composed the Gos- 
pels from their own conceptions of what a teacher should 
say, the subject of Dress would scarcely have been omit- 
ted. 

§ 6. Origin of Evil. 


This subject has been partly anticipated under the head 
of Controversies. An opinion among Jews outside of 
Judea was that the world had grown old, and that the 
diseases of age were upon it. This view was adopted by 
the Stoics.2° The Gnostics laid stress upon two points as 
the wearing of veils by virgins. Clement of Alexandria ‘‘ takes oc- 
casion to speak of the proprieties of dress, and particularly female dress ; 
and enters minutely into a description of a lady’s toilet. He condemns 
all extravagance, and a disposition to seek ‘the rare and expensive in 
preference to that which is at hand and of low price.’ He will not allow 
ladies to wear ‘ dyed garments’ ; but he insists on the use of veils, which 
must not be purple to attract the gaze of men. A chapter follows on 
covering for the feet, as sandals, and slippers on which it was customary 
to bestow great expense, and another, on ornaments of gold and precious 
stones. On this subject, it seems, the ladies of Alexandria did not un- 
resistingly submit. They ventured to argue the case with the holy 
father. ‘Why,’ say they, ‘should we not use what God has given ? 
Why should we not take pleasure in that we have? For whom were 
precious stones intended, if not forus ?’ This was bringing the argument 
home : but Clement found means to reply, by pointing out the distine- 
tion between what is necessary, as water and air, and lies open to all; 
and what is not necessary, as gold and pearls, which lie concealed beneath 
the earth and water, and are brought up by criminals, who are ‘set to 
dig for them.’ Other arguments he employs. But the advocates for the 
use of ornaments rejoin, ‘If all are to select the common and frugal, who 
is to possess the more expensive and magnificent?’ To this Clement re- 
plies, somewhat obscurely and clumsily, by a reference to what it may be 
proper for men to use, if they avoid setting too high a value on it, and 
contracting too great a fondness for it. He concludes the discussion by 
objecting to particular articles of female ornament, or ornaments of a 
particular form ; that of the serpent, for example, which was the form 
under which Satan tempted Eve, and therefore to be abjured.” —Lamson, 
Church of the First Three Centuries, pp. 137, 188. 

24 See Ch. II. note 30. 
25 See Judaism, note on pp. 56, 57. 





a a ee ~ S§IBYLLA, BACIS, HYSTASPES, 71 


causing imperfection in the world, namely, that self- 
existent matter, from which it was made, was imperfect, 
and that the Jewish God who made the world was but an 
imperfect being. The mass of Christians held that the 
heathen deities, who had in some way obtained control 
of the world, were (see Ch. III. § 1) chief authors of its 
evils. Several other explanations had more or less cur- 
rency.” Compare Judaism, p. 362, note 12. 

In the Gospels Jesus is not represented as trying to 
solve this problem for his followers. 


: § 7. Sibylla, Bacis, Hystaspes. 


Before the Christian era a document in the name of 
Sibylla had been fabricated by a Jew. It and subse- 
quent documents under the same name were used by the 
popular party at Rome in their contests with the aristoc- 
racy. Some Christians also used them very freely, so as 
to bring on themselves the epithet “ Sibyllists.” ”° 





_ % «Of this problem [the existence of evil] the solution peculiar to the 
Gnostics was twofold. ... They taught, on the one hand, that the 
Creator was an inferior and imperfect being, and, on the other, that evil 
was inherent in matter.” — Norton, Genwineness, Vol. 3, p. 5, 1st edit. 
On the subject of evil as inherent in matter, a passage of. Paul may be 
compared : ‘‘I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection : lest 
that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a 
castaway.’’— 1 Cor. 9, 27. 

2 Theophilus (ad Autol. 2,17 ; Opp. p. 106 B) maintains that beasts 
originally were not destructive. ‘‘ For nothing evil originated from God, 
but all things were excellent, exceedingly so.” He argues that if the 
head of a household do right or wrong, his domestics will imitate him ; 
that when man, the lord of the earth, sinned, his slaves (that is, the ani- 
mal creation) followed his example. ‘* When, therefore, man shall as- 
cend to what befits his nature, no longer doing evil, they also will be 
restored to their original mildness.” Cp. lrenzeus, cited in Ch. III. note 21. 

28 See Judaism, Appendix, Note A, § 2, and compare in the present 
work p. 19, 

29 This epithet is used by Celsus (Origen, cont. Cels. 5, 61) and com- 
plained of by Origen, who says that Christians making such use of the 
Sibylline writings were blamed by some of their fellow-Christians for so 
doing. 


72 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.  f[cH. vu. 


A composition frequently mentioned with Sibylla was 
named Bacis. It was probably moral rather than theo-. 
logical.®° 

Another document also mentioned usually in connec- 
tion with Sibylla was Hystaspes.*! It may have been 
of Stoic origin, interpolated by a Christian, It was pre- 
dictive in character. 

The Gospels contain no allusion to, or use of, these 
documents. | 


§ 8. Prediction and Inspiration. 


The Jewish view of Inspiration, though not excluding 
the idea of Prediction, gave prominence to the idea of 
moral teaching under the influence of or by authorization 
from God, a view transmitted to not a few Christians.®2 

The heathen view had no connection with moral teach- 
ing. It regarded the inspired person as for the time be- 
ing insane,** and unguided by any operation of his or her 
mind, but controlled wholly by a divine power. The only 
object of this inspiration was in heathen eyes the predic- 
tion of future events. 

Some Christians seem to have taken in large degree the 
heathen view of Inspiration.*4 

This view nowhere appears in the Gospels. 





8 See Judaism, pp. 454 — 459. 

81 See Judaism, pp. 459, 460. 

82 «The men of God filled with holy spirit and becoming rpopjra:, 
public teachers, being inspired by God himself and rendered wise, be- 
came God-instructed and holy and just. Wherefore they were thought 
worthy to receive in return this reward, [namely,] that of becoming 
instruments of God, and possessed of the wisdom which is from him, 
through which wisdom they uttered. what pertained to the creation of the 
world and all other things, for they predicted pestilence and famines and 
wars. Not one [merely] or two, but several existed at different times and 
seasons among the Hebrews, but also Sibylla among the Greeks. .. . 
And first they taught with one accord that [God] made all things out of 
nothing.” — Theophilus, ad Autol. 2, 9, 10. 

83 See Judaism, p. 415, note 52. 

% Athenagoras, addressing the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 


eet Ss SPURIOUS CONVERTS. 73 


§ 9. Spurious Converts. 


In Apostolic times we find allusion to converts who 
did little credit to the Christianity which they professed. 





and his son, says: ‘‘ You, who exceed others in understanding and piety 
as regards what is truly divine (or the true divinity), would pronounce 
it unreasonable [that we], giving up belief in the spirit of God which 
moved the Mourns of the prophets as its instruments, should attend to 
human teaching.” — Supplicat. 7. ‘‘1 think that you, being especial 
lovers of learning and highly gifted with understanding, are not unac- 
quainted with the [writings] of Moses, or of Isaiah, or of Jeremiah, or of 
the other prophets, who, being OUT OF THEIR SENSES, under impulse of 
the Divine Spirit uttered what was instilled into them, the Divine Spirit 
using [them] as a flute-player a flute.” — Supplicat. 9. 

Justin at an earlier date seems to teach the same view in his Dialogue, 
ch. 115; Opp. 2, p. 382 B, edit. Otto. 

‘* A man who is in the spirit, especially when he sees the glory of God 
or speaks with God, must of necessity be out of his senses, being over- 
shadowed by Divine power, concerning which [point] is the dispute be- 
tween us and the psychicos non-spiritual.” — Tertullian, adv. Marcion. 
4,22. He hadin the preceding sentence identified ecstasy (the condition 
of the prophet) with amentia, which, as used by cd meant temporary 
insanity. 

85 See 1 Cor. 5, 1, 11,13; 6,8 2 Peter 2,13-15. I also understand 
Paul as referring in the following passage to morally unworthy converts, 
who for their own purposes misapplied his doctrine of exemption from 
the Mosaic (ritual) Law. ‘‘ A pillar and basis of the truth and con- 
fessedly grand is the secret of practical-monotheism, — which has been 
manifested in hurnan lives, attested by miraculous power in the most pub- 
lic manner” (more literally, in the sight of angels, or, to use a modern 
expression, in the sight of heaven), ‘‘has been proclaimed among the 
Gentiles, has found credence in the world and been honorably accepted, 
— but the Spirit expressly says that in the last times some will fall away 
from the faith, adhering to deceitful spirits, and to teachings of heathen- 


ized men, hypocritically false, cauterized in their conscience.” —1 Tim. 
3, 15-4,2. On the persons whom Paul had specially in view compare 
Judaism, p. 250. 


A Jew, or Judaizer, could boast that he Gaertn in his flesh the evidence 
of his practical-monotheism. Paul probably had this in mind when he 
speaks of his practical-monotheism as manifested in the flesh, that is, in 
the lives of those who professed it. 


74. INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.  [cH. vm. 


In the second century we find that persons deemed 
unworthy were debarred from the Lord’s Supper. Ata 
later date church discipline became more systematic, and 
had numerous details for those subjected to it. 

In the Gospels the Master gives no specific direction 
for dealing with nominal though unworthy followers. 


§ 10. Chronology and Divisions of Time. 


The Romans counted time by the annual consulships, 
The Greeks, scattered in different localities, counted it 
in a variety of ways. We find that Josephus uses the 
Macedonian months * in giving the date at which various 
events happened. 

Had the Gospels been patty or wholly fictitious atid 
grown up outside of Judea, it seems morally impossible 
that their composers should not have inserted some Greek 
or Roman divisions of time, as a means of increasing cre- 
dence for their work. We find, however, no allusion to 
the Greek divisions of time, though Christianity during 
the first two centuries found the larger part of its con- 
verts from among Greeks; nor do we find the most accus- 
tomed Roman chronology. Luke, a physician of Syria, 
mentions a taxation as commencing when Cyrenius was 
governor of that province,® and states that John began to 
preach in the fifteenth year of Tiberius.” 





86 See citations from Justin Martyr, Apol. 1, 66, in Ch. IV. note 16. 

87 See Judaism, p. 555. 

8 Luke 2,2. The mention of Cyrenius seems natural enough in a 
Syrian who had either lived under the administration of that governor or 
else associated with others who had. Such mention would have been un- 
likely a century later, for at that date it would have conveyed a fixed 
idea of time to no one outside of Syria, and to very few inside of it. 

89 Luke 3,1, 2. In the divisions of provinces between emperor and 
senate (see Judaism, pp. 83-85) Syria was one of the provinces under 
control of the emperor. It was natural that those who were, as the in- 
habitants of Syria, more immediately subject to the emperor than to the 
senate, should sometimes fix dates by the year of the emperor under 
whom they had lived. Had the Gospels grown up in Asia Minor or in 
any senatorial province, such record of time would be unlikely. 


§11.] . DISUSE OF WORDS JESUS AND CHRIST. 75 


§ 11. Temporary Disuse of the Words Jesus and Curist 
by one School of Christians. 


The extant works of Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theo- 
philus, written about Mare Antonine’s time, and the 
_ perhaps later Epistle to Diognetus, while deifying the 
Master, ignore the appellation Jesus or Christ.4° Three 
considerations may aid in discerning their motives. 

Jews and Stoics had used the word Logos * to desig- 

nate God’s agency or interposition. Under the Stoic 
emperor Mare Antonine it may have been deemed a safer 
or more dignified title than Jesus or Christ.” 
_ Again: Celsus or other heathens may have already 
ridiculed the personal appearance of Jesus, and on this 
account Christian controversialists may have sought a 
term not associated with the human body. 

Again: The party in power, during the reign in ques- 
tion, was strongly reactionary and laid great stress on 
ancient usage. In meeting this tendency Christians may 
have wished to represent the teacher of their religion as 
more ancient than anything which heathenism could 
boast. In doing this they were tempted to ignore him 
who had lived less than two centuries previously, and to 
personify a teacher older than mankind. 

If we now turn to the Gospels we find in one of them 





49 In Theophilus 3, 24, Incois means Joshua, The four writers occupy 
(with translation) in Otto’s edition 784 pages. 

Of writers in the second century who do not deify the Master, HermAs 
is the only one of considerable length who calls him neither Jesus nor 
Christ, though Wake’s version twice uses the latter word. Hermas 
styles him Son, Son of God; rarely Lord, never Logos. His non-men- 
tion of the Master in Command I. is noteworthy. The Clementine 
Homilies, also written under Mare Antonine, use nearly forty times the 
words Jesus or Christ, or Jesus Christ. In the rarrp century Minucius 
Felix uses neither word. 

The De Monarchia, Oratio ad Grecos, and Hermias are brief treatises 
whose plan scarcely claimed mention of the Master. They do not iden- 
tify him with the Logos, which in the Oratio (§ 5) means teaching. 

#1 See Judaism, pp. 50, 358. 

4% See p. 199. 48 See Ch, III. § 14. 


76 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.  [cu. vu. 


a preliminary statement** concerning the Logos which 
has been understood in opposite senses, as affirming or 
as denying its separate existence. There is, however, in 
John’s Gospel, as in the others, no effort to avoid using 
the words Jesus or Christ. Had any of the Gospels been 
in process of formation during this period, the word Logos 
would, in the school mentioned above, have replaced the 
more usual terms for the Savior. The argument applies 
only to a limited period of time. 


§ 12. Natural Science. 


European heathens, in discussing theological questions, 
such as the nature or character of the Divine Being and 
the future life, mingled into their discussions matters of 
natural science. The probable explanation of this is that 
they found in the Greek teaching of partly monotheized 
lands views of theology and natural science which were 
new to them and which they associated. In Plato’s trea- 
tise on the immortality of the soul the earth is mentioned 
as a sphere; an explanation of volcanoes is given, and 
a statement is made touching water, which implies that 
the doctrine of gravitation had been dimly if not clearly 
reached.*® 

In Cicero’s work on Divination we find mentioned the 
order of the planets. It is stated that Venus and Mer- 
cury were between the earth and the sun, while the oth- 
ers were more remote.*? 





44 John 1, 1. 

45 Phoedo, 182; Opp. edit. Ast. 1, p. 596 E. The spherical form of 
the earth seems to have been inferred (see Dio Cass. 60, 26) from the 
shadow which it cast on the moon during eclipses of the latter. Dio 
speaks of the shadow as conical. He must have deemed the sun opposite 
the base of said cone, and therefore much larger than the earth. 

46 Phedo, 139-141; Opp. edit. Ast. 1, pp. 602 606. Plato alleges 
that the waters flow down into the earth on either [every #] side as far as 
the middle, but that the opposite side (606 E) would be “‘uphill.” He 
talks, however, like a man retailing ideas to which he had listened and 
which he but imperfectly comprehended. 

47 De Divinat. 2,91, al. 43. Compare 2, 10, al. 3, and 146, al, 71. 


§ 12.] _ NATURAL SCIENCE. 77 


Seneca, the Stoic, belonged to a sect whose views were 
borrowed almost entirely from these monotheized lands. 
In his writings the revolution of the earth on its axis is 
stated as a theory held by several. 

Marcion, the Gnostic, interwove with his system the 
belief in three heavens, which seems to have prevailed 
in Asia Minor. . 

In the Ascension of Isaiah we find mention of seven 
heavens, the system adopted by the Greeks in Egypt.” 
Clement of Alexandria seems to have shared this view.®! 

The Valentinian Gnostics interwove into their system 
the seven heavens already mentioned, and superadded 
a Pleroma, which was doubtless the supposed sphere of 
the fixed stars, —a sphere which we find mentioned in 
Cicero.” : 

The Gospels put into the mouth of Jesus no word on 
the subject of natural science. It is at least probable, if 
they had been fabricated from the fancy of his followers, 
that some one would have endeavored to make him seem 
wise in this direction. 





48 Seneca raises the question ‘‘ whether the universe revolves, the 
earth being quiescent, or whether the earth revolves, the universe being 
quiescent. For there have been those who said that we [on earth] were 
the ones whom, unconsciously to eurselves, the order of nature carries 
around, and that rising and setting is not caused by motion of the 
heaven.” — Nat. Quest. 7, 2. 

49 Tertullian, adv. Marcion, 1, 14, cited in Underworld Mission, § XXI. 
note 12. I surmise that one heaven was assigned to the moon, one to 
the sun, and a third to the stars. 

The sun, moon, and five then known planets were each regarded as 
occupying a distinct heaven, 

51 See Underworld Mission, § XXI. 3. 

52 De Repub. 6, 10; Somn. Scip. 4.. The latter of these documents is 
in Greek, the former in Latin. One, however, is a mere duplicate or 
translation of the other. The document in Greek contains (see Judaism, 
Ch. VII. note 23) a number of expressions technical in Jewish theology 
and obviously borrowed from Judaism, 


78 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF ‘HISTORY, [cH VIII. 


§ 13. Literary Heathens. 


Certain literary characters among the heathens, such 
as Plato, Homer, and others, are discussed, some of them 
copiously, by Christians in the second and third quar- 
ters of the second century. Had the Gospels been at 
that date in process of formation, some criticism upon 
these heathen writers would almost inevitably have been 
put into the Master’s mouth. 


§ 14. Persecutions. 


Any remarks of Jesus * on the subject of persecution 
are far less full than they. would have been made by his 
followers in the second century. i 





58 The references to Plato in the Indexes of various authors are as 
follows : In Justin Martyr, forty-five ; in Clement of Alexandria, ninety- 
three ; in Tatian, three ; in Athenagoras, ten ; in Theophilus, thirteen ; 
in Vol. 1 of de la Rue’s Origen, sixty-three, and in Vol. 4, twenty-five ; 
in Irenzus, four. 

The references to Homer are : In Justin Martyr, eighteen ; in Tatian, 
five ; in Athenagoras, five; in Theophilus, six; in Ireneus, nine; in 
Clement of Alexandria, fifty-six ; in Vol. 1 of dela Rue’s Origen, eleven, 
and in Vol. 4, one. 

54 ‘* You will be hated by all men for my sake. . . . When they per- 
secute you in one town, fly to another ; and if they drive you from that 
town, fly to yet another.” — Matt. 10, 22, 23. ‘‘ They will lay hands on 
you and persecute you ; they will deliver you over to synagogues, and 
put you in prison, and bring you before kings and governors for my 
sake.” — Luke 21, 12. ‘‘If they have persecuted me, they will perse- 
cute you also.” — John 15, 20. ‘‘ They will put you out of their syna- 
gogues ; nay, the hour is coming, when he who kills you will think that 
he is offering a sacrifice to God.” —John 16, 2, Norton’s trans. The 
disciples would as yet have failed to comprehend a mission to the Gen- 
tiles had it been foretold to them, 


§1.] | EMPERORS. 79 


CHAPTER IX. 


ROMAN POLITICS. 


g 1. Emperors. 


HAp the Gospels undergone accretion in Italy it is 
almost impossible that they should have contained no al- 
lusions to the emperors who influenced the external his- 
tory of monotheism. No allusion, however, is made in 
them t6 any emperor whose reign began later than the 
ministry of Jesus. In respect to some of the emperors 
this would be a remarkable fact if the Gospels were not 
honest efforts to record the life of Jesus by persons con- 
versant with what they narrated. Two of the emperors 
who became prominent in Christian theology have al- 
ready been mentioned Others became prominent in the 
history of monotheism. 

Under Titus, who had been left by his father in com- 
mand of the army, the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed. 
This must have been done by advice of the patrician fac- 
tion, who were prompting him to rebellion against his 
father. While hesitating to rebel, he hesitated to destroy 
the temple; when he decided on rebellion, the temple 
fell? He afterwards assumed a crown at Alexandria, 
but his father must have found means to reclaim him. 





1 See Ch. III. §§ 8, 9. 

2 Titus ‘‘deliberated long whether he should burn [the temple] as 
being an incitement to enemies, or whether he should preserve it as a 
testimonial of victory. . . . Titus, [on] being proclaimed emperor by the 
army, burned and pulled down the temple in Jerusalem.” — Orosius, 
7,9; Opp. pp..479, 480. ‘‘ You with iron teeth gnawed the house.” — 
Sibyl. Orac. 3, 329. Josephus states (Wars, 6, 4, 5) that a soldier set 
the building on fire, contrary to the will of Titus. His object probably 
was to shield that emperor from odium incurred by the transaction. He 
was often accommodating to the wishes of patricians (cp. Judaism, Ch. 
VY. note 126, with Ch. IJ. note 26), and they not infrequently, after 
carrying their point, liked to throw the odium of it upon others. 


80 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HIsTorY.  [cn. 1x, 


The only allusion in the Gospels to destruction of the 
temple? is accompanied by the remark, “Of that day and 
hour knoweth no man... NEITHER THE Son, but the 
Father*” This cannot have come from a Christian anx- 
ious to magnify his Master’s foreknowledge. 

The reign of Domitian, under whom, though perhaps 
contrary to his will, Monotheists were murdered and ex- 
pelled,® would, if the Gospels were fictions, have probably 
been foretold. 

Hadrian would hardly have escaped mention. He exe- 
cuted some of the aristocracy, and, as a matter of course, 
was deemed unfaithful to heathenism and to its deities. 
In order to regain standing as an orthodox heathen, he 
thought it necessary to commit the folly of stripping 
himself to nudity, and in this condition, in a public place, 
tugged an unfortunate lamb to an altar on which he sac- 
rificed it. A medal is still extant commemorating the 
procedure.® He carried on war against the Jews, but 
gave some protection at least to Christians. 

Trajan, the warrior, who preceded Hadrian, and the > 
Antonines who followed him, would scarcely have es- 
caped mention. 

In the Sibylline Oracles we find all these emperors 
foretold. In Book 5, Il. 12-51, they are described seria- 
tim. In Book 8, ll. 50-58, mention is made that fifteen 
of them should reign, and a description is there given of 
Hadrian. In Book 12, 11 13 —223, a much fuller account 
of the emperors from Augustus to Commodus is predicted, — 
with a designation of Julius Cesar as dictator prior to 
Augustus. 





8 Matt. 24,2; Mark 13,2; Luke 21, 6.° These passages make no 
allusion to any destruction by fire. 

4 Mark 13, 32. In Matt. 24, 36, it reads: *‘ Of that, day and hour 
knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” 
Compare Sibyl. Orac, 1, 393-395, quoted in Appendix, Note J. 

5 See Judaism, pp. 279 -— 282. 
6 Orosius, p. 489, Leyden edit. Compare Judaism, Ch. VI. note 34, 


§§ 2, 3.] CONBEST WITH GREEK CULTURE. 81 


§ 2. Political Personages. 


We find depicted in a monotheistic writing’ Agrippina, 
sister of one emperor, wife of another, and mother of an- 
other, who for a time ruled her husband and the Roman 
world.® We also find in a Christian writer® mention of 
Capito, the most prominent of patrician lawyers, the head 
of a legal school, who is contrasted with the lawgiver 
from Judea. 

Had any accretion to the Gospels taken place in Italy, 
these and other political personages would scarcely have 
been overlooked. 


§ 3. Contest with Greek Culture. 


In Italy Greek Culture was regarded as nearly allied 
in many ways to monotheism and popular rights, and 
therefore antagonistic to patrician privileges. The be- 
lief in an incorporeal God, common among Jews and 
Christians, is treated by Cicero as a not uncommon opin- 
ion among Greeks! Jewish and Christian views on 
morality were largely held by Greeks in the lands where 
monotheism had spread, and when Greeks from these 
lands came into Italy they brought their views with them. 





_ 7 See Sibylline Oracles, 3, 75-80, cited in Judaism, pp. 139 - 140. 

8 Agrippina, when first she became a mother, consulted her brother 
Caligula touching a name for herson. He jocosely suggested the name 
of their half-witted uncle Claudius, to which of course she showed be- 
coming repugnance. In later life she, for the sake of power, married 
this weak-minded uncle. She has been more permanently known as the 
mother of Nero. Her father and mother had each of them headed a 
rebellion against Tiberius. See Judaism, pp. 186, 523. 

® Clement of Alexandria quotes Isaiah 2, 3: ‘‘ Out of Zion shall 
go forth w law. ... This my upright law chants. . . not the law of 
Capito . . . but the eternal law of the new harmony named from God.” 
— Protrept. § 2; Opp. p. 3, ll. 15-22, edit. Potter. 

10 See Judaism, pp. 11-14, 367 - 371, 382 - 386. 

1 *< Deum... ut Greci dicunt, dodparov.’?—Cicero, de Nat. 
Deorum, 1, (12), 30. The passage is a criticism on Plato, but treats 
other Greeks as using this phraseology. 


82 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. Ix, 


It is plain that these views clashed with what patricians 
deemed to be their interest. Some mention of this col- 
lision has been elsewhere made.” 

When Augustus, surrounded by the aristocracy, was 
condemning one after another to death, his surrounders 
gave the leader of Greek Culture no chance of speaking 


to him. Mecenas, unable to break through them, wrote ~ 


on a card, “ Up at leneth, Butcher!” and threw it to 
him. It is obvious from this and other circumstances 
that Mzecenas was the opponent of patricianism. * 

When Virgil wrote to please the leader of Greek Cult- 
ure, he selected a peaceful topic, Georgics or agriculture, 
but when he wrote for Augustus and the aristocracy, his 
first words were, “I sing of arms”; and he makes 
Eneas, the pr actical-monotheist, ae superintend (ined, 5, 
418, 461) a prize fight. 

When Domitian spoke for the anti-patrician party, he 
gave point to his condemnation by quoting from the Geor- 
gies (2, 537) : “ Before an impious race feasted on slaugh- 
tered bullocks.” © When Augustus, under patrician influ- 
ence, was striving to hinder Greek Culture, and wished 
to punish such Romans as wore a Greek dress, he quoted 
the -dneid (1, 282): Romanos rerum dominos gentemque 
togatam, — “ Romans, masters of the world, and a togaed 
nation.” 17 

The efforts to drive Greek Culture from Rome took 
place always in the reign of patricianism. 





12 See Judaism, Ch. 1. § 4. 

138 Dio Cass. 55,7. Augustus thereupon quitted his judicial seat. 

14 Georgics, 3, 41, 42, The article on Virgil in Smith’s Biographical 
Dictionary treats (p. 1264) the Georgics as ‘*the most finished work of 
Virgil,” adding ‘‘ that his fame rests in a great degree on this work.” — 
Possibly any extra finish given to it may have been aided by suggestions 
of Mecenas. 

16 Aneid, 1, 1. 155 See Judaism, pp. 417, 419. 

16 Suetonius, Domit.9, I have little doubt that Virgil was copying, 
as in many other instances, from a Jewish document, and that the word 
impious was an intended translation of &ce8fs, a word which in Jewish 
Greek means unbeliever, or heathen. See Judaism, p. 468. 

7 Suetonius, August. 40. 


SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. 83 


Had the Gospels grown by additions in Italy, there is 
at least a probability that the political conflict would in 
some way have become apparent. They make no allusion, 
however, to the writings, leaders, or arguments on either 
side. 





CHAPTER X. 
: SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. 


IF we now summarize the argument, we find it as 
follows : — 

1. Christian authorship of the Gospels was contrary to 
the controversial wants of the early Christians, and so 
embarrassed them in their arguments with heathens that 
it is morally impossible they could have fictitiously as- 
signed such authorship to them. 

2. Of all the controversies in which Christians were 
engaged, whether between themselves or against Jews or 
heathens, not a trace appears in the Gospels. 

3. Of the opinions prominently asserted and defended 
by the early Christians, or by particular schools among 
_ them, and which they rode as hobbies, not one appears 
in the Gospels. The argument is strong as regards any 
of their cherished opinions, and is intensely strong as 
regards their views of the heathen deities and Idolatry. 
The very object which early controversialists assigned to 
the Master’s ministry, namely, the overthrow of these 
deities, is utterly ignored in the Gospels. 

4. Of the customs to which the early Christians at- 
tached importance, or to which they were wedded, we 
find nothing in the Gospels, except the baptismal formula 
of the second century. : 

5. The peculiar designations for God used by Chris- 
tians in heathen lands are absent from the Gospels. 

sa are the terms by which Christians were desig- 
nated. : 


84 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. x. 


7. So are the terms which we have mentioned as com- 
ing into use among them. That the phrase Jesus Christ, 
or that the latter portion of it without the article, should 
not be found in the Gospels beyond what has been 
pointed out, is a remarkable fact. | 

8. We find various questions about public games, slay- 
ery, and other things, in which the Christians were deeply 
interested, but on which the Gospels attribute no remark 
to the Master. 

9. The absence of allusion to Italian politics renders 
very improbable that any of the Gospels underwent ac- 
cretion in Italy, and adds somewhat, at least, to the 
probability that they were not unhistorically fabricated or 
reworked outside of that country. 

It is morally impossible if the Gospels had been ficti- 
tious, or were slowly growing under the hands of Chris- 
tians, that they should have omitted all the topics of 
chief interest to those who wrote them. 

If we now turn to the spurious records which Chris- 
tians forged, we can to some extent test the truth of the 
preceding remarks. The test is imperfect, because these 
spurious records were not strictly original compositions, 
but (setting aside the Letter of Lentulus) simply an effort 
to reproduce facts concerning Jesus — especially the mir- 
acles — as recorded in the Gospels, basing them, however, 
on non-Christian evidence. Had these documents aimed 
to originate a life of the Master rather than to substan- 
tiate one which already existed, they would have had 
a much wider field for introducing the peculiarities of 
other countries or later times. In these records we find 
Jesus charged with destroying the sabbath,! and effecting 
cures by magic. Articles of clothing, belonging to offi- 
cial position, are mentioned by their heathen names ;% 
the terms Lord’s Day and Palm Sunday are introduced 
as if in use during the ministry of Jesus ;* we find the 





1 See Appendix, Note A, §$ 1, 7; Note B, § 3. 
2 See Note A, §§ 1, 6, 7; Note B, § 1. 

3 See Note A, §§ 2, 4, 11. 

* See Note A, §§ 2, 13, 14. 


SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. 85 


Roman standards doing homage to Jesus; we find 
twelve persons in Judea charged with being proselytes ® 
and maintaining that they are born Jews, — a subject of 
dispute natural in localities outside of Judea, but un- 
likely to affect simultaneously twelve witnesses in Jeru- 
salem; we find crucifixion treated as a Jewish form of 
punishment ;’ the results of Christ’s mission to the under- 
world are plainly stated ;° a description of his personal 
appearance is given at length;® the appeal to the Old 
Testament as having foretold the crucifixion and resur- 
rection of Jesus admits but one interpretation ;!° and 
the psendo-predictions foretell the destruction of the tem- 
ple with a sufficient description of those who were to 
destroy it.) 

There is yet an indirect argument to be drawn from a 
condition of things nineteen or twenty years after the 
ministry of Jesus.’ Six different writers — heathen, 
Jewish, and Christian — concur in implying or referring 
to a wide-spread excitement at that date among Jews, the 
blame of which was thrown to some extent on Christians. 
The writers are Tacitus, Suetonius, the author of a Jewish 
Sibylline production, Paul, Luke, and Eusebius. There 
can hardly be a question that these writers, with the ex- 
ception perhaps of Paul and Luke, wrote independently 
of each other. Their concurrence implies that at the 
date mentioned Christianity had taken considerable hold 
in Italy. The allusions, moreover, to the excitement and 
to some circumstances connected with it are, in the Acts 
of the Apostles and in Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians, 
so incidental that they can only have been written by 





5 See Note A, § 4; compare Phil. 2, 10. 

6 See Note A, § 6. 

7 See Note A, near close of § 7, col. 2, and Note B, § 3. ‘ 

8 See Note A, § 13, Note B, § 3, and speech of Thaddeus in Note F. 
Compare Note I, footnote 5. 

® See Note D, and speech of Thaddeus in Note F. 

10 See Note A, § 7, Note E, § 1, and compare Note I, footnote 5. 
~ 11 See Note J, No. 1. 

2 See Judaism, Ch. VIII. § 5. 


86 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [oH. Xt. 


persons who lived through it, and whose readers were 
familiar withit. Writers of a later date would not have 
expected such allusions to be understood. These allu- 
sions establish the fact that the documents were written 
by persons then living, and each of these documents im- 
plies a then accepted history of Jesus, essentially such as 
we find in the Gospels. 





CHAPTER XI 
DID PSEUDO-RECORDS REACT ON THE GOSPELS ? 


Ir the genuineness of the Gospels be assumed, the 
question may be asked, whether any of them have suf- 
fered by interpolation from the pseudo-records concerning 
Jesus. If these records were independent of the Gospels; 
if they were not, with one exception, as already said, a 
mere effort to reproduce facts mentioned in the Gospels, 
but substantiated by other evidence, — the question would 
be more important. Still the question may be asked 
whether anything whatever has been interpolated from 
them. The answer as regards all of them save the Acts 
of Pilate is, No. There is not the slightest ground to 
suspect such interpolation. : 

If we now examine the Acts of Pilate, there is no 
reason to surmise interpolation from it into the Gospels 
of Mark (as corrected from the manuscripts) or Luke or 
John. In the case of Matthew there are passages in 
the last two chapters which seem to require a different 
answer. His Gospel was written in what was then called 
Hebrew, —a language not extensively spoken, and whose 
book-markets, therefore, could scarcely pay for that rigid 
revision of manuscripts which existed in the Greek ones. 
Judea, moreover, even before the destruction of the tem- 
ple and to a far greater extent afterwards, must have 
been more poorly supplied with trained copyists than 


DID PSEUDO-RECORDS REACT ON THE GOSPELS? 87 


were the centres of Jewish thought and influence in other 
lands. The Jewish Christians became in Judea an ob- 
scure sect whose copyists cannot have exceeded others 
in that locality. The Acts of Pilate were originally 
written in this Hebrew, or Syro-Chaldaic, dialect,) and 
there are five, or perhaps six, instances in the last two 
chapters? of Matthew where the question may be fairly 
raised whether an addition has not been made from the 
Acts of Pilate. None of these passages pertain to the 
life or teaching of Jesus. They are here subjoined for 
the reader’s study. The first two and the fifth contain 
nothing inherently improbable; yet they are more appo- 
site to the Acts of Pilate, where the object is to “make 
out a case,” than in the Gospels, which are elsewhere 
remarkably free from any such aim. 


1. Dream of Pilates Wife. 


“Now at that feast, the governor was wont to release 
unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. - And they 
had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore, 
when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, 
Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or 
Jesus, which is called Christ? (For he knew that for 
envy they had delivered him.) 


[“ When he was set down on the judgment-seat his wife sent unto 
him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I 
have suffered many things this day in a dream, because of him.] 


“ But the chief priests and 
elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask for 
Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.” 3 





1 See extracts in Ch. I. note 4, from the headings of various manu- 
scripts of said document. 

2 The Acts of Pilate begin with the measures for the arrest of Jesus 
during his last visit to Jerusalem, and are parallel only with the last two 
chapters. 

§ Matt. 27, 15-18 [19], 20. Compare Appendix, Note A, § 5 at the 
beginning and § 7 near its close. 


88 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. XI. 


2. Pilate washes his Hands. 


“And the governor said, Why! what evil hath he 
done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be 
crucified. Lg 


[“ When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather 
a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the 
multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person : 
see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be 
on us and on our children. | . 


“Then released he Barabbas unto them: and 
having scourged Jesus, gave him up to be crucified.” * 


3. The Dead of former Times arise. 


“ And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two 
from the top to the bottom: and the earth did quake and 
the rocks were rent: and the tombs were opened. 


[* And many bodies of the holy which slept arose, and came out 
of the tombs AFTER his resurrection, and went into the holy city, 
and appeared unto many. | 


“Now, when the centurion, and they that were with 
him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those 
things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly 
this was the Son of God.” ® 


4. The Tomb sealed and guarded. 


“ And when Joseph had taken the body,... and laid 
it in his own new tomb,... he rolled a great stone to 
the door,...and departed. And Mary Magdalene was 
there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the tomb. 


[“* Now, the next day that followed the day of the preparation, 
the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, 
Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, 
Alter three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the 
tomb be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by 
night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen 





4 Matt. 27, 23 [24, 25], 26. Compare Note A, § 10. 
5 Matt. 27, 51 [52, 53], 54. See Note A, pp. 132, 187. 


“DID PSEUDO-RECORDS REACT ON THE GOSPELS? 89 


from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. 
Pilate said unto them, You haye a watch : go your way, make it as 
sure as youcan. So they went and made the tomb sure, sealing 
the stone, and setting a watch.] 


“With the week’s close, as it dawned on the first day 
of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, 
to see the tomb. And behold [a great earthquake took 
place for| an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, 
rolled away the stone, ... and sat upon it. 


4 His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow, 
and from fear of him those watching quaked and became as dead. ] 


But the angel addressing, said to the women, Do not fear, 
I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.” © 


5. The Soldiers bribed. 


“ Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my 
brethren, that they go into Galilee, and there they shall 
see me. : 

[(“ Now, when they were going, behold, some of the watch came 
into the city, and showed unto the chief priests all that had taken 
place. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had 
taken counsel, they gave much money unto the soldiers, saying : 
Say, ‘ His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we 
slept.’ And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade 
him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they 
were taught : and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews 
UNTIL THIS DAY.] 


_ “Then the eleven disciples went into Galilee, into a 
mountain where Jesus had appointed them.” 7 


6. Account of Judas. 


In the order of Matthew’s Gospel the account of Judas 
precedes any of the five passages already cited. It is here 
placed last because, though it must be an interpolation, 
the evidence is not conclusive for its existence in the 
Acts of Pilate earlier than in the Gospel. 

“When morning came, all the chief priests and elders 





6 Matt. 27, 59 61 [62 — 66] ; 28, 1, 2 [3, 4], 5. See Note A, pp. 137, 138. 
7 Matt, 28, 10 [11-15], 16. See Note A, § 14. 


90 INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [oH. xt. 


of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to 
death. And having bound him, they led him away, and 
delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. 


{“Then Judas,... when he saw that he was condemned,*® re- 
pented, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief 
riests and. elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed 
innocent blood. . . . And he cast down the pieces of silver in the ~ 
temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief 
priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful to put them 
into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took. 
counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers 
in. Wherefore that field has been called, The field of blood, unro 
THIS DAY. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the 
prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price 
of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel valued; - 
and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.} 


“ And Jesus stood before the governor: and the gov- 
ernor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews ? 
And Jesus said unto him, I am.” 9 

Besides the foregoing there is in the Epitome of events 
after the resurrection,’ subjoined to Mark’s Gospel by a 





8 Jesus had not at this date been condemned nor even tried. In the 
pseudo Acts of Pilate (§ 3) the wording is, ‘‘ Judas, seeing how they LED 
JESUS BEFORE PILATE, . . . repenting,” etc. 

9 Matt. 27, 1, 2 [3-10], 11. See Note A. §3. In Acts 1, 18, Judas 
is not said to have returned the money, but to have used it for buying a 
field. The statement there is part of a parenthesis (verses 18, 19) which 
Luke, speaking in his own person, has interjected into Peter’s speech. 

In the Acts of Pilate the account of Judas appears only in two cog- 
nate manuscripts which Thilo (Cod. Apoc. p. CXxIx.) designates as 
Cod. Venet. and Paris D. This renders uncertain whether it existed 
in that document before Matthew’s Gospel was translated into Greek. 

10 On this Epitome see Appendix, Note O, footnote 2. It is here given 
with the sources from which it seems to have been compiled. _ 


“And having risen early, on the 
first day of the week, he appeared 
first to Mary of Magdala out of 
whom he had cast seven demons, 

‘* She went and told those who had 
been with him, who were mourning 
and weeping. And they, when they 
heard that he was alive, and had been 
seen by her, did not believe. 

** After this, he manifested himself 


“‘Mary of Magdala cometh early 
. . to the tomb, . . . and beheld 
Jesus standing.’? — John 20, 1, 14. 


“Mary of Magdala cometh, bring- 
ing word to the disciples that she 
had seen the Lord.’’— John 20, is. 
‘*Their words appeared . . . as idle, 
and they disbelieved them.’’ — Luke 
24, 11. 


DID PSEUDO-RECORDS REACT ON THE GOSPELS ? 


91 


later hand, a passage (verse 16) which may have been 


copied from the Acts of Pilate. 


The subsequent passage 


also (verses 17, 18) appears in two or more manuscripts of 


the same pseudo Acts. 


Yet in this latter document it is 


less supported by manuscript authority than the preced- 
ing verse, and may, therefore, have been copied INTO said 


document, not FROM it. 





in another form to two of them as 
they walked, going into the country. 
And they went and reported it to the 
rest ; and even them they did not be- 
lieve. «¢ 

*€ Afterward he manifested himself 
to the eleven themselves, as they 
were reclining at table, and upbraided 
them with their unbelief and hard- 
ness of heart, because they did not 
believe those who had seen him after 
he had risen. 

** And he said to them, Going into 
all the world, proclaim the glad tid- 
ings to the whole creation. hoever 
believes and is baptized will be saved, 
but the unbeliever will be con- 
demned. 

** And these signs will accompany 
believers : In my name they will cast 
out demons; will speak languages 
new [to them]; will take up ser- 

ents ; and if they drink any deadly 

int it will not hurt them ; they 
will lay their hands on the sick, and 
they will recover. 

‘*So then, the Lord, after he had 
spoken to them, was taken up into 
heaven, and sat down on the right 
hand of God; 

“And they went forth, and 
ehegaeei everywhere, the Lord work- 

g with them, and confirming the 
word by the signs which followed it.’’ 
— Mark 16, 9-20. 


‘‘Two of them were going the same 
day to a village called Emmaus... 
Jesus himself drew near, and went 
with them.’’ — Luke 24, 13, 15. 


‘¢ He himself stood in the midst of 
them.” — Luke 24, 36. ‘“‘ Jesus 
came and stood in the midst, and 
said... Be not faithless, but be- 
lieving.” — John 20, 19, 27. 


‘* Going into all the world proclaim 
(the glad tidings) to the whole crea- 
tion that, whoever believes and is 
baptized will be saved, but the unbe- 
liever will be condemned.’’ — Acts 
of Pilate, § 15; Thilo, pp. 618, 622, 
Cp. Matt. 28, 19. 

“You will receive power when the 
Holy Spirit hath come upon you ; 
and you will be my _ witnesses.” — 
Acts 1,8. Compare Heb. 2, 4, cited 
below. 

[In Acts of Pilate, § 15, of Paris A, 
the adjacent passage is perhaps an 
Retort 

‘‘When he had spoken... he 
was taken up.” — Acts1, 9. ‘‘ Sit 
on my right hand.” — Heb. 1, 13. 


‘*God also bearing them witness, 
both with signs and wonders, and 
divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy 
Spirit.” — Heb. 2, 4. 


The Epitomist seems to have understood the words of Jesus (Acts 
1, 8) as a promise of miraculous powers, rather than of a divine in- 
fluence, which should fit them for their work, and of which any miracu- 
lous powers were merely an accompaniment. 

The taking up of serpents may have been based upon Paul’s experience 
(Acts 28, 3), with which, however, compare Luke 10, 19, 

The citation from Acts of Pilate follows the text of Paris A, except 
the words in a parenthesis which are from Paris D. 


92° : INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH xm. 


CHAPTER XII. 


TWO. QUESTIONS FURTHER. 
§ 1. Correspondences of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 


THE phraseology of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is in 
many cases very similar.1 Two considerations will ac- 
count for this. 1. As regards EVENTS recorded, any one 
narrating the same thing fifty or one hundred times falls 
inevitably into a more or less set form of words. The 
Apostles and their companions taught in each other's 
company, and the phraseology in which they taught, 
being used over and over again, acquired more or less 
of a fixed character. Matthew and Peter had doubtless 
taught in each other’s hearing. The diction of Mark 
may be largely that of Peter. Luke at Antioch may 
have listened to more than one of the Apostles and their 
companions, 2. The TEACHING of Jesus, even if repeated 
by different listeners, would present a similarity of ex- 
pression. 

§ 2. Style of John, the Evangelist. 


In the New Testament certain peculiarities of expres- 
sion are found only in the language of John, and in that 
of others as quoted by him. This renders probable that 
the Evangelist, in recording when old the utterance of 
others, has at times done it, partly at least, in his own 
language, though scarcely when giving (18, 38) the answer 
of Pilate. 

In the appended comparison the left-hand column gives 
the language of the Evangelist, the right gives that of 
others as reported by him. The latter is the reported 
language of Jesus, except where the name of another is 
subjoined., 





1 This question is somewhat fully treated by Mr. Norton in his Genu- 
ineness, Vol. 1, Appendix, Note D; abridged edit. Note B. 





ii 
nN 
a 


“YIN.L) DY) OF SSOUJIM TeIq JYSTUL T Fe, 
‘yyndg kqQ poytyours oq Avut Aoy} 4eu, 
“Yyndy St PIOM AUT, 
-ymndy fiyg YSnoryy uayy AjouRg 
"yynty (4) 942 Tye OYUT NOA pRoy [[TA 
ey ‘autos T[eYs yINI} (j) 43 Jo ylutds oY} OYA 
"SSOU}IM Ivoq TIM ey * * * Y7PNL7 OY} JO 
quids ey} * * * euloo [[eys oyopovred oy} Uo MA 
"QA10001 
qouued pLIoM oy} Porm ‘yynwg oyy Jo ytuids oy, 
‘aJT] OY} pue Y7NL7 247 pue ABM ol[} WL J 
[j Worstot onsy YoVe}] yyw) ay7 Yeeds | osnevoog” 
“WEY Ul YOU ST 
YIN} BSNVIAG Y7NL] OY? UL 4sVj pues Jou YIOp OH 
“POD SiO, BROT 
I Worm yng oy nok 04 uayods savy oA, 
‘aolj NOA OYVUL [[VYS YJ? Oy, TF, 
“yjnl BY} MOUY TTVYS nox 
“yjnt) UI pur yids ut uty drysiom ysnut ** * AoW, 
"yng Ut pur yids ut 
ioyyey oy drysiom [Teys sieddrysiom ont} oxy, 


"8 ‘ST 
“6L 
“EE 
“LU ‘LT 
‘sl ‘OT 
‘98 ‘GT 


ee 
‘9 ‘ST 


‘ze ‘g 
¥ 


"8s “& 


"yynt} [oyy] at ype nok yey, *s 
*yyng £Yy 04 Auow14s9} SuLiwog °g 
"ymnty [j oYg] UT PACT J WOYM “I 
TIT onysidgy 
"yng [oy] UT SuTyyeM * 
"Yl? 9Y} JO YUNOIOV UG * 
"YM? IY) UMOUY DAVY OU M “TL 
“(ISU UL,, ‘Avs ppnoar 
neg sev ospo ao fApn1y) v7.19 [j oY] ULOAOT J WON “T - 
IT orysid 
"ying oy) St yurids OY, “9 ‘G 
"10119 jo pds oy} pure 772.17 (j) 9G} JO 
quids oy} Mouy oM sty} Aq ‘sn voy you seOop 
pox) JO Jou st OYM oy ‘sNSIvay poy sSMoUy IoOAVIOU A “9 “F 
‘YINl} OY) JO aLe OM YeyY MOoUY OM STY} AG “6L ‘E 
(<6 SHY OY} 0G 0F 
snsop Soluep OYM oY OARS (SktoAIf) JBATOIOP B ST 
OM, », Uotssoidxe oy} Sutose10; oy} YIM oredui0D) 
"YINl} IY} JOST (SOgaa#) POOyPs|ey ON “TZ 
"YjNl} YJ MOUY JOU Op NOA asnVI0g “IZ 
"JOU SI Y7Nt7 94) UVU Sty, UT “FP “ZY. 
‘SM Ul JOU ST YPnd, YT 8 “T 


a+ 


‘OLH ‘NOILISOdSIG SAHOIDITAY ‘LIYIdS NV IISIMHO ‘ONIHOVEL NVIISIUHO SALINVIISIMHO JO NOILVNOISAG V SV HLOUL 


“Yyn} 94) S90P TAAIOY NY 


*s10q1O pue susor 


aa 


"IZ ‘S 


‘Tedsop 


‘(amaglyp ake a7320j]) HLOUL AHL Od OL 


"ying yg you op ** * OM 9 “ET 
TT osidg 
“wmer qstosueaAg 


Mires 0h" Bae «HLOUL», GUIOM FHL IO sasa ‘T 


INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. — [cu. xu. 


94 


‘ysydegq oq} uyor— 


"ypne yg fo yyoyeods * * * yjtva ay) fo st yey, OR “Ie ‘ES , "(MATA Jo qurod 
*(aoLg0L norl00y not) pp.lon sry) fo you ATp[iom 8 utory) pp.iom ayy fo Soy} yeods osojorayy, *¢ 
we [ “(aoLnot norlogy not) pjsom sry) fo ale NOX “gs '‘g ‘(aorl09x gor) ppom oy) fo ore Aayy, *¢ “B 
‘dTXOM FHL 10 
‘poy fo you ere nok * * * pos fo st AI0Y M “LF ‘g ‘poy fo you sTIaAVOYM * * * poy fv are 9 M9 
“poy . ‘pop fo ore Loy} AoyoyA syiuids oyy AIy, **t 
fo oq Hf JoyjoyM Suryovs} Au Jo Mouy [eys oF “LIT ‘Z ‘poy fo JOU SI sSaUSNOd}YSLL JOU Yop JeAvosoyM “OL ‘gE 
*ao) Jo 
“aap oy) rayyey nok fo ore noX “tt ‘g ‘aap oy) fo St UIS T3044 TUIMIOS yey} eH “8 ‘E 
"IIAGG AHL Jo 
“ao10a AUL SIBOY Y7.17 2Y) fo SI IOACOTM “LE ‘QT "yynd) 9Y7 fo SLOIT ON ‘IZ ‘ZS 
‘edsop ‘T onsidg 
‘HLOUL FHL £0 
“ C2) « 10. CUOM AHL fO SNOLLVNIAWOO ‘II 


‘4sLIYO suse Aq oumed 772.272 OY} PUL IOABT “LT 
‘YJN.4g JO PUB IOAVJ JO [INT FI ‘T 
Tadsoy 
FOS yng 
oy}; WO pues [Te wo AUOUIT}SO} svYy sNII}OMECq, "ZL 
"OVEN Cf yyy "YINd} OY} LOJ S19.10Ge]-MOT[ay oq Avut Aoyy yey, *8 
Aq uvour nok op yey ‘0) ¢ ypnz [sty] st qe “se “yynd 
"ootoa AUL sivoY{ 470.17 47 JO SI JOABOYM “LE ‘ST [oy}] ur Suryyem worprryo Aut jo rvoy AvuL | 4vyy, *F 
3 ; Tedsop ‘IIL onsidgy 


95 


TWO QUESTIONS FURTHER, 


§ 2.] 


., (@piqe) Ureursrl asnoy oures oy} UT,, *L ‘OT oyN'T : osuos yworsXyd v ut yey} puv “oravg oy} Aq osn szt Jo ooULySTIT 
9UO INQ ST e19Y} 9014} JOYJO OY} UE ‘IOLA oY} JO osenSurT] poysodor oY} UI 4T PUY OM Op oUOTe JedsoyH sly UI puy ‘uyos 
0} retfnoed are ‘osn oAT}BINSY oY} JO SULIOJ oMIOs pu “IeAoMOoY ‘Aouonbey oy,  “suorsserdxo oAoqe oY} JO [[B 0} Jou os 
‘amos 0} SshoSoyvue ole YOIYM— poureoy ysey NOY} WOM ssuryy oy} UI opiqe “FL ‘HE “WIIY, Z ‘ ssouljoy puv Ayeyo 
“qyrey ur (aprqn) anurjuos Koyy Jt ‘ct ‘gy “WILY, [ £ SurT[Vo oyy Ut opiqe Fz pue 0z‘Z “ION T —[urg Ut sosessed Inof ore 9.104} 
Joy ‘uyor 0} avt~noed AyartyUe jou st ‘19AOIOUL ‘osN OATFBINSY OYJ, “YIULIOD ur “og “H “WII, Z ¢ [assoa oy} Ut ‘Te ‘4g f uMNIT 
-[AZor, ut ‘ot ‘Og { svory, ut ‘¢ ‘gg ‘eddoe ut ‘er ‘G syoy ‘ coed oy} ut ‘9 ‘TT ‘ esnoy oy} ur “cs *g ¢ oaTITeH UT 6 ‘Z UYOLr 
¢asnoy oY} UT “22 ‘g aYN'T : INd00 sooULISUT SUTMOT[OJ OY} JUaUIEZSOT, MON OY} UI SNy, ‘sov[d v ur eouepiser TeorsAyd Jo 
Phesisck a} S¥ UOULULODUN 4OU ST “UT [JoMp IO ‘oNUIZUOD ‘UTBUIOL ,, Pa}v[sSUBI} SEUIT}OWOS “UL Opiqe ,, WoTssaidxo OY, g 





g ‘“UlIY Ul J pus oul wz YWoprgn 4yeyy OFT “S "sh we yyoprgn oy yey} Mouy OM AQoIOFT “FZ 
“oul ‘WI UL Sy pus UY 

ue aprgn nok ydeoxe 4ymaz 1voq nok Ud IOY}ON ‘F Ur Yyopign syusUIpURUIUIOD sty Yodooy yVyy OFT “FS 
‘nok Ur] puv out wopegy ‘b ‘ST “ULI we Yoprgn OSC M ‘9 “E 

"SyIOM | “OUT U2 OpIQP “8% 
oy} Yop oy ‘ou wy Yyopgy OYM JOYLLY OT, “Ol ‘HT “ULIY U2 Oprgn T[VYS NOK “Lz *S 

“WI UL | pure oul wp yyoprqn “1oYIVT OY} UL PUL LOG oY} Ww op2Qn T[BYS NOK “FZ 
poorq Aur yyoxatp pue ysoy Aut yyoxwa osoyMA “VE ‘Q “UTY we Ypoprgn oY YES eyI OH “9 S 

> *odsop "T orstdg 


*"NVW NI ONIGIAV ISIYHO HO GOD JO NOISSTUCXA TyOOudIOgd HLIM ATIVINOAdSHA 


z LSINHO MO GOD (42 419471) NI ACIAV ‘AI 


# 


“*SSOU 
“SSOUYIMP UL SYIDN OYM OFT “LYE —«--yuwp Ws Ypoyywm * * * ToYJoIG sTY YOY yey} OH “TIS 
‘SOUL Wp YPM YOU TILA ‘oul YJomoT[oJ OYA OH “L‘B ‘ssouginp UW yyom * * * OMIT “9 'T 
‘edsop ‘I osidg 


‘s10q410 pue snso¢ “uyoLr ysTTesuBAT 
‘SSUNWUVA NI WIVA ‘III 


INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.  [cH. XI. 


96 


“nok up aprgn yysrun Aof kur yeyy, “I 
ano] SIY U2 opiqv * * * T “OL 
*9a0) AUL U2 aprgn T[BYs NOK “Or 
“aao] KUL uy apngy °6 
"aura BY} 
ur apign 4 4dooxe MI Ivaq youuv Young 9YLSY “F ‘GT 
"SSOUYLOP WL 
9pign YOU P[NOYSs oul WO YJOAST[Oq JaAsosoYyA Fey, “9F ‘ST 
“pion Lut v2 aprgv nok JT ‘ie ‘g 
nok ur burprgn piom sity you eavyy ‘8g ‘CG 
*jadson 


‘qSTIYQ) JO buzyonay oy} We Yjop1qy IAASOSOYM 6 
*qSLIYO Jo Furyonaz oy Wr You YZ2pIqGN ABADOSOY MA “6 
"ST UL S9P1QD FOU} YINL) OUT, % 
‘II onsidg 
*900) UL YJOPIQD IBABOSOY AA “OL “B 
§ UIT U2 POL) JO 9207 OY} Y7epi9gn MOF “LT 
‘mT we Hurprqn af) JvULaQa YYeY JalapMuUl ON “CT 
“Yep UL SOPLYV “FT 
“UIT we Ypop2LgGD (S,pox)) psas SIT 6 ‘E 
‘nok us yyoprqn * * * buspwown oy], “16 
nod Ul ap1qn 
Suuuiseq oy} Woy prway oavy No YOY yeyr JT “F% 
. ‘SuluUtseq 9y} 
mol puway oavy nO Yorym nok we aprqn yeyy 4o'T “F% 
nok ut Yjoprqn POL JO pom oy], “FL 
"gyby) Oy us Yoprgo * * * OH “OLS 
"T osidgy 


«NI GGIdV» JO SASO YHHLO “A 


nof 
up spign ssuikes Aur pue ou we argv nok JI ‘Lh 
‘oul U2 apign you op uem AuvjyT ‘9 ‘SGT 
*jedsoy 
‘B10TIO pus snser 


“UlIY UL poy) PUB POH we Sap2gqD OFT “OT 
‘pop Ul ot pus wiry U2 Ssaprgy Pox) *ST 
‘SN UL OY PUB UIY U2 aprqv OM “ST 
"Sl U2 Y790N190 POX) ‘1OYJOUB UO BAO] OM JT “ZI “BH 
T opsidgy 
‘uqor ysTjesuvAq 


97 


TWO QUESTIONS FURTHER. 


§ 2.] 


POH) UIs YOU YY [LAS T}OOp 4Vy} OF “IT 


“III onsidg. 
*“(quids sty YIM YURSIZATION T9q JOU yyy “2 “T) 
QsuyQ) wry wees jou YIeY YJouUIs JoACOSOTM “9 “ES 


“LOYD 9} U99s SEY MU Uses ST OTM OH 6 “HT “woos JOU YY oy MOY *p0H “0 ‘B 


“LOY IY} Was SIT OT f POX) WOIF ST OFM 


"T onsidg 
ey ydeoxe wayjng 7Y} Woas SV, OUO Aue yey} JON ‘9F ‘9 “pop Uses IAA® YYVY 9UO ON “ST ‘T 
‘adsop adson 
‘LSINHO WAS OL ‘GOO TAS OL “IA 
"oaY? 
unouy odey [ Yq 620y2 UNouyY OU Sey PTIOM OT, “cs 
“sry snsar pue * * * aay) mouy Kew Aoyy yyy, *& ‘LT "onry st yey wey mouy Leu om yey, “03 “GS 
. “LOY WY} UNouy you eavy Avy} asnwoeg *g ‘OT “pOx) JOU YQaN0UY “JOU YYACT 4VY} oF] *8 
gg aUb UMOUY YOU NOY 4seFT °*6 “pop yyamouy * * * YOAOT yey} oUo AIOAY *L 
. “loungy ‘poy yyonouy yey, oH 9 “h 
kur umouy oaey prnom nok ‘aw umouy nok pey ‘Lh “ “way unouy eaey nok esnedeg “FT 
“Layo “Lay ey? unouy eaey NOX esneoeg “ST 
ey} J Nouy os uaa “oul yyoanouy IYI OY} SV “ST ‘OT “wry unouy easy nos osnvoeq ‘s1oy}e,T “ST 
"0y9 ou wry mouy T Kes prnoys T “uny mouy T “YTS yVy} OH *F 
FT pure ‘wey mouy J nq “uy UMoUY YOU eAvy NOX “es ‘g "unYy Mouy em yey} MOU om op AqaleH * ZS 
‘edsop ‘TL onsidg 
*sIoy}O pue snset “UyOL ysTesuvAG 


‘ISINHO MON OL ‘GOD MONH OL ‘IA . 


[cH. Xm. 


INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. 


98 


-afr) aay yqSstur Loy} yey} OULD UIE T 
‘aft) jousajo yoy * * * Ysoy AuL YZoyva Oso 
afd) [DUL2}0 YJWY YUL WO YAST[Eq 4VY} OFF 
‘afyy 70ULaza 
avoy kv * * * UOg oY} Y}os OYM oO A19Ad YLT, 
taf) ovny yqastur noX yey, 
‘aly qousajga avoy nok yuryy nok woy} Uy 
‘afi qousaja yyoy * * * prom AUL Yjorvoy yey} off 
‘4sydegq oy} uyor — 
aft) Jnu1o.a YY UOY OY} UO YpoAarfoq Fey} OFT 
-afyy youdaya aany ynq, ‘ystied you prnoyg 
-afrp joudaga savy ynq *ystied you prnoyg 


"Ol ‘OT 
i 64 
"LP 


"or ‘9 
"OF 
"68 


“98 

‘OT 

"cI ‘oS 
adsoy 


-afyy qousoyo samy nok yey} mouy Avut nok yyy, “eT 
‘afyy YOU YoY Wos ay} JOU YoY YY} OF “oE 
afin YoY Wos OYY YY FY OH “SI'S 
“MMI UI Surpiqe aft) Joule YoY JaLlopInUL ON “eT “E 
"T onsidg 


‘TAIT IVNUDLA UO “AAIT DAVH OL 


«AAVH» JO SNOLLVNIGNOO “XI 


-afyy svy umop fin) prnoys ouo Luv yeu, 
‘umnop 7 fa 
03 Ayoyne oavy [ * * * waop (eytt Aut) 9 An} | 
‘aly hur unop fin) { esneoog 
-afra sry umop sin) prsydeys poos oy, 


*s10410 pue snser 


‘Sl ‘GT 


“SI 

“LT 

‘IL ‘OT 
qadsoy 


‘af sry unop pro) OF “I'S 
‘T onsidg 
“mayor ysTToOsUVAT 


*(woargrs ALXah) WATT NMOG AVT “IITA 


TWO QUESTIONS FURTHER. 99 


§ 2.] 


“P]IOM OY} UT ST4VY} oY Wet} noX Ut St 48Y} 9 
SI 4ayvo1 osnvoeq ‘ EY} Bwod1a00 eAvY * * * NOK + % 
“2U0 payaUn OY) 9UlL0I.1200 BABY DOK “FT 
“U0 payaUN FY} 9UL0ILIAO GARY NOK “Sl 'S 
§ pion sy} Yyouoosoa0 Jey} OY SLOT M “S 


*p1 LOM OY} BULOILAVO OABY, T “SE ‘OT “pplom BY} YzaULoI.LaA0 POX) JO UL0G St JoaooszzyM “F ‘S 
‘pdsoy ‘1 onsidg 


‘INO GUMOIM AHL ‘ATUOM AHL 94) TNOOUAAO “X 


‘uog 942 pus Loy] 7? 
yq0q yoy * * * SULIPOP oy} UT YPpIqe Fur OH 6 
“poy you yzoy * * * YJossolHsuBl} LOAd0SOy MA “6 
11 onsidg 
‘poy fo Uog! ay) yOu YRDY FEI} CH “et 
‘ojo ‘wos OY} YOY FYI OH “I'S 


‘T onsidg 
‘OLN ‘NOS THL AAVH OL ‘G09 DAVH OL ‘ATHLVA AHL AAV OL 
“ons 
Jo}volS OY} YY doy} OFUN our paLoatfep 4eyy OF{ “TT ‘ET 
"us poy you poy Aoyy, “Fe 
"ws, poy you poy Ley], % ‘g 
"WIS OU BADY PINOM NOK “TF ‘GE "US OU BADY OM FBT} Kes oM JT °8 ‘T 
‘edsop "T osidg 


s10q}0 puy snser uyor 4ysTjesuvAg 
"NIS DAVH OL 


INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. [cH. XH. 


100 


‘SSOUyIVp UT opiqe Jou plMoys our uo YOASTTOq 
JOAVOSOYM Jey} “P[LOM or} O7UT 7y627 % oUIOD UIE T “OF 
‘qybr) JO UaIp]tyo 9yy. oq Avur nok 
yeyr “7y4r) oy} ur eaatfoq ‘pyhr7 oavy nok oy “98 
‘gyhr) ayy oavy NOX oTTYM 
TPM “nok YA 7627 OY ST OTTYM OTAITT BV IOA “C8 ‘ST 
“MI Ut 77627 OU ST e1AY} OSNBOEq 
“ToT{UINYSs OY YYSTA oy} UL Yea ueu v jr yng “OT 
“plioas sty} Jo pyby 
ey} Yjoos oy * * * Avp oy} UL yYeM uvut Aue JT 6 ‘TT 
“Pltom oy} Jo 7y6y oyy we] “¢ ‘GE 
"OFT JO 2yb2) oN 
eAvy T[VYS ynq ‘ssouylep Ul YTV jou TTeYs our 
YJOMOT[OF FLY} OY : PTO oy} Jo yy6x7 oy ue J ‘zr ‘'g 
‘qy6r) OY} 04 Yours YYNA4 Yoop 4yeVyA OY Ing “Tz 
"7y62) 9Y4 04 YAoULOD JeyyIOU 
qy6yy oy YRoYeY [IAS YJoop yey} ouo ArOAS JOT *0Z 
762) UeYy IoYyYeI SsouyIep 
PeAoy Wau puv “ppIOM oy} oJUT ood st yyhT “EL ‘SE 


‘jedsoxy 


‘S10N30 pu snser 


*‘P[IOM Of} OFUT TJoULOD 4eT4 
ueut AI9A9 YOIYSTT orp ‘7h on1y oy} sem yeyy, 6 
"7 6y yey Jo 
SSOUJIM Ivaq 0} JUS seM ynq ‘77/627 yey You sem OFT °S 
; . “gybr) OY} JO SSouyIM IeVEq OF, *L 
‘ssoUyiep UL Yyoutys 7461) oy puy “e 
‘met Jo 7¥627 OY} SVM OfIT OUT, ‘F “TE 
*jedsox) 
"76x OT} UT TopIqe 1oy}OI STY YIACT YeYY OFY “OL 
“MOT [IJUN UdAD SSOUYIVp UT ST “1aqJOI1q 
sty Yyoyey pure “yhy) oy} Ul st oy Yes yvyi OFF 6 
“eur 
Mou 77627 oni} oy} pue f4sed st ssomyiep oy, ‘8 ‘ge 
‘Tle 48 ssouxrep OU st wATY UT pue Yyhe SI poy *¢ ‘T 
T onsidgy 
‘UgOr ysTjosueAg 


‘OLN ‘GOD JO NOILVISHAINVN ANV 40 WO ‘ALINVILSIMHO ‘ISIUHO ZO NOILVNDISAA V SV 


(Sep) LHOIT ‘TX 


TWO QUESTIONS FURTHER. 101 


§ 2.] 


"040 ‘9g “T[IA UMO OUTUL 7ow Yoos J “0s 


"249 “9g ‘1OABLO} JSITYY 7OU [[BYs “UIT 


OATS [[VYS [ WY} Joya oy} JO syULIp 


"SN POACT OT AVY} 779 “Pox POACT OM YLT} ONT 


"O40 ‘syiuids oy3 14 yng “qt1tds A10A9 Jou dAoT[og 
‘poyTurmos yey yng “ue ow YoSpul Joye OT, “22 ‘Gg 


‘YyNay UL puv peep 


UL yng ‘onSu0, Ul Toy}IOU “pIOA UT OACT 70U SN 4O'T 


IaAoosoy MM “FL “® ‘41 Mouwy of osnvoeq 7g ‘YAY OY} JOU 


4qstidegq oy} UyoLr — “UITY 9.10jaq mouy of osnvdoeq nof oJUN UozILLM gow OAV T 

quos We [ 4VY} 77g “ISLAY OY} 7ow we | plws [ Feyy, *8s “910 
"oqo “4eqy yng “pp1oM 9y} Plo ue yng * * * FUOUIPUBUTUIOD MOT B 70U OFLIM J 
UUMEpUOd OF PLO 9} OJUI UOS SI 7OUW JUOS POX) “LT ‘S *0}90 ‘ose 7nq ‘fu SINO LO} JOT 

*jadsoy 
“(PYKP 90) Lod “LON ‘SUSHHLILNV “IIIX 

‘you poluep PU pessoyuod OFT 

‘sotdrosiq — “Buleg O}UL oUIvO SUIT} UO JOU 4T 
‘20]}. YsB prnoys ueur Aue yey} Jou ysepeou puv qnoyyIM pu “41 Ysno1y} Sutoq OUT ourvo sSuty} ITV 

sSury} [Te JSaMouy Noy} yey} oMs OM o1v MONT “08 

‘soldiosig — “qe “poureyse oq JOU pu dOUSpyUOD oAvy Avur 9 
-aoid ou ysoxveds puv ATureyd noy} ysoyvods MONT °63 ‘OT ‘aI] OU ST PUB YINIA} SI * * * HuTZUTOU ous OT, 

“UIT “UITY UT SUIT UINyS JO WOIsBOD0 
UI ST SssoUSHoo}YySt1un ou pus ‘on1} st cues OY, ‘ST “LZ guOU ST oL0Y} puV “FYSIT oy} Ul YJopiqe * * * OH 
‘MOT}eUMTEpUOD “TATY UL JOU ST UNI} OY} puv ‘eI, BST * * * OH 
OJUT EVID JOU [TeYS pue ofl] [VUIOJo YY ** * OFT “FG ‘G ‘Sh UL JOU SI YINI} OY} PUB ‘SaATESINO EATODOP OMA 
"FY SIT oY. 04 YJouros "YINI} OY} YOU Op PUL OT] OM 
soyIOU “FUAT] oy} YIOZVY [140 YJoop yw} ouo Area "0s ‘ES T]e Je SSOUYLep OU ST WITY UT PUL FYI] St POH 


*s10TIO pue sunset 


‘jedsop 


‘NOLLVOUN GNV NOMLVWALAV “IX 


“uyOLr ysTesuVAT 


3A 
% S 
7 os.dq 


"Or 

2 g 4 

°g 

"9 

*C e 

T ost 


INDIRECT TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. Jou. x1. 


102 


"aul JUS 
yey} WTY JO [ITM oy} 7g “TIM WAO OUTUL Op 0} JOAT “8B 
"0490 
yng “UsAvey Wor pvelq yey} gow no avs sasoy ‘ze ‘g 
"039 Yng ‘UBUL WOIy AUOUII}SEY Jou OATODOL [ “FE ‘G 
‘Tedsoy 
‘S10T1O pue snsos 


‘qqSIT JI} Jo 
SSOUJIM TBO 0} JUS SBA 9Ng “FYSTT Yeyy gow SVM OFT “8 ‘T 
‘jedsoxy 
‘Jjasurry Yodoey por Jo u9440Hoq ST 
yey} OY 7ng “Jou YOUNIS por Jo U10G ST AaADOSOUM ‘ST 
*‘poojq pue soyvm Aq yng ‘Ajuo aoyem Aq goayT ‘9 ‘G 
! “1vay yo 
Yyyoysvd OAOT Joojiod yng ‘oAOT UI Ivey 70 SI OLOYL], “SI ‘H 
‘T orysidg 
FOL wrlesuvag 








' 








APPENDIX. 


NOTE A. 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


Among literary frauds by Christians in the first three 
centuries, the most important were two cognate documents 
called the “ Acts of Pilate” and “ Pilate’s Report.”+ Differ- 
ing authorships were assigned to the former of these, and it 
had various titles, besides the one here adopted.’ It appears, 
also, to have been repeatedly remodelled, interpolated, and 
altered for the purpose of adapting it to various controversial 
wants. An elaborate translation of all these variations, 
though useful to a scholar, might prove distracting to an 
ordinary reader. To avoid such distraction and facilitate in- 
sight into the chief object of this forgery, the author has con- 
fined his translation of the document to two only of its forms, 





1 Justin Martyr twice mentions the former of these, and Tertullian 
once refers to the latter. ‘‘ And that these things occurred you can learn 
from the Acts prepared under Pontius Pilate.” —Justin Martyr, 
Apol. 1, 35. ‘ And that he [Jesus] did these things you can learn from 
the ‘Acts’ prepared under Pontius Pilate.” — Justin Martyr, Apol. 1, 
4s, ** Pilate — himself already a Christian as regarded his own conscien- 
tia, private conviction — announced at that date to Tiberius Cesar all 
those circumstances [which I have narrated] concerning Christ.” — Ter 
tullian, Apol.1,21. Compare Judaism, p. 442. 

It will be noticed that Justin uses the Latin title ‘‘ Acts.” This 
probably implies that Latin translations of the FORMER document were 
already in circulation. The LATTER document, even if forged in Greek, 
must have professed a Latin original. 

According to Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 1, 9, and 9, 5 and 7, the Heathens, a 
little before the year 300, invented a counter-record concerning Jesus, 
which bore the same name. The latter document was circulated by offi- 
cial authority; and was taught to children in the schools. Its object, of 
course, was to misrepresent and ridicule Jesus. 

2 See Ch. I. note 4. 


106 ACTS OF PILATE. [NOTE a. 


which he has also divided into sections and supplied with 
headings. 

The manuscripts designated by Thilo as “ Paris A” and 
“Paris D” are the ones from which, with exceptions to be 
duly pointed out, the following translation is made. The 
heading and prologue of the former have already been given.® 
The heading of the latter is subjoined.* : 

The date when these “ Acts” were likely to circulate most, 
and to undergo most alteration, was in the fourth and in the 
early part of the fifth centuries. Christians were then the 
dominant but not the sole party. This protected them from 
inconveniences to which, in earlier days, a use of this docu- 
ment might have subjected them. Subsequently to the fifth 
_ century the advocates of the Greek and Roman religions were 
scarcely so numerous as to claim any frequent appeal to 
Pilate’s authority. 

Those portions of the document which seemed most likely 
to have belonged to it as originally written are printed in 
larger, and the supposed additions in smaller type. This 
arrangement was made, however, several years ago, and if the 





8 See Ch. I. note 4. Thilo (p. cxx.) gives as the literary designation 
of this manuscript ‘‘ Codex Paris. Catal. 770. olim Colbert. 2493. tum 
regius 2356.” For the convenience of those who may wish to compare 
the translation with the original a table is here appended of the sections, 
with the pages of Thilo on which they will be found. . 


Preface, pp. 494-498. § 8, pp. 550-554. 
§1, ** 500-506. 9, ** 556-564. 
2, * 506-508. 10, ** 566-574. 
8, ** 508-512. 11, ** 574-588. 
4, * 512-520. 12,~** 590-594. 
5, ‘* 520-526. 13, ** 594-604. 
6, ** 526-534. 14, ‘* 604-616. 
7, “* 5384-548. 15, ‘* 616--626. 


4 The title or heading of Paris D corresponds, except the three itali- 
cized words, with that of the Codex Venetus given in Ch. I. note 4. 
‘“‘ Narrative concerning the estimable suffering of our Lord and owr Savior 
Jesus Christ, and concerning his holy resurrection, written by a Jew 
named Enneus, which Nicodemus the Roman Toparch translated from 
the Hebrew language into the Romaic [that is, the common Greek] dia- 
lect.” — Thilo, Cod. Apoc. p. cxxvi, compared with statement on 
p- CXxIx, ll. 11, 12. A manuscript copy of Paris D, now printed, en- 
abled the author to amend Thilo’s text. "a 

Thilo has given copious extracts from this manuscript on pp. 500, 504, 
505, 507, 510, 511, 519, 585-541, 544, 545, 548, 549, 555, 556, 558, 
559, 560, 563, 564, 568, 569, 571, 572, 574, 575, 581, 589, 590, 591, 
595, 597, 606, 607, 609, 610, 611, 613, 614, 616, 618, 626. 


NOTE A. | PREFATORY STATEMENT. 107 
author had eyesight thoroughly to re-examine this division he 
might possibly alter it in some places. Words without manu- 
script authority are in brackets; those copied from other 
MSS. are in parentheses. Probable interpolations or dupli- 


cate readings are placed between dashes or in Italics. 


PREFATORY STATEMENT. 


’ PARIS A. 

In the FIFTEENTH year of the 
rule of Tiberius, — Cesar and 
king of the Romans —and of 
Herod, king of Galilee —in the 
nineteenth year of his reign — on 
the eighth [day] before the 
Calends of April,®? which is the 
twenty-fifth of March, in the 
consulship of Rufus and Rubel- 
lio, in the fourth year of the two 
hundred and second Olympiad, 
under Caiaphas, high-priest of 
the Jews ; Nicodemus prepared 
a narrative, and delivered it to 
the chief priests and other Jews, 


PARIS D, 

Four hundred years [literally, 
times] having elapsed after the 
kingdom of the Hebrews came to an 
end ; the Hebrews being tributary 
under Roman rule, the king of the 
Romans appointing them a king ; 
finally while Tiberius Cesar swayed 
Roman affairs, in the EIGHTEENTH 
year of his reign, he having ap- 
pointed as king, in Judea, Herod 
— son of that Herod who formerly 
killed the children in Bethlehem — 
and having Pilate as governor in 
Jerusalem,‘ Annas and Caiaphas 
having the high-priesthood in Jeru- 
salem ; — 

Nicodemus,® Roman Toparch, 





of ...and as many things 


_ 5 Thilo has here substituted the reading of Monac. A, instead of 
“April 8th,” an evident corruption of text in Paris A. As Thilo’s 
work is readily accessible his slighter emendations will not hereafter be 
mentioned. The previously mentioned fifteenth year of Tiberius was, 
according to Luke (3, 1), that in which John commenced preaching, but 
Tertullian (following the Acts of Pilate?) puts the crucifixion of Jesus 
(adv, Judaeos, 8) in this fifteenth year and the beginning of his minis- 
try (adv. Mare. 1, 15) in the twelfth year of Tiberius. Marcion’s view 
(adv. Mare. 1, 19) accords with Luke. 

6 There is here an obvious omission in the text. We must supply 
either ‘‘ the things done to Jesus” or ‘‘ the death and suffering” or some 
nearly equivalent expression. 

7 These dates must be a later addition, probably as late as the fourth 
or fifth century. 

8 The introduction, into the heading, of Nicodemus, a Roman Toparch, 
took place doubtless after the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian. It and 
some other peculiarities of this manuscript were caused by the wish to 
substitute, as far as possible, Heathen for Jewish testimony. The name 
of Nicodemus may already have been too closely linked with the docu- 
ment to admit of discarding it. “Iovdaiwy in the same sentence must be 
an error for ‘Tovdatov. The connection implies this and so does the in- 
troductory statement in footnote 4, 


108 


PARIS A. 
as occurred after the crucifixion 
and suffering of our Lord. And 
Nicodemus composed [it] in the 
Hebrew language.®. 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


[NOTE A, 


PARIS D. 
summoning a Jew named En- 
na for Ennzus], requested him 
to write what had been done in 
Jerusalem concerning Christ in 
the time of Annas and Caiaphas. 
Which when the Jew had done 
and delivered it to Nicodemus, 
he [Nicodemus] translated these 
things from the Hebrew manu- 
script into the Romaic dialect. 
The contents of the narrative 


are as follows :— é 


X 
§ 1. Character of Charges against Jesus. 


PARIS A. 

(The chief-priests and scribes 
having plotted together)?° Annas 
and Caiaphas and Numes and 
Dothaé, [Dathan ?] Gamaliel, 
Judas, Levi, Nephthalim, Jaeirus 
and the other Jews, came to 
Pilate against Jesus, accusing 
him of many misdeeds, saying : 


We know this man— him— 
to be the son of Joseph the car- 
‘See born of Mary, and [yet] 

e states himself to be Son of 
God andaking. And not only 
this, but he profanes the sabbaths, 
and wishes to destroy the law of 
our fathers. For we havea law not 
to heal any one on the sabbath ; 
but this man, by wrong deeds on 
the sabbath, heals the lame and 


PARIS D. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ, having 
performed many great and extra- 
ordinary miracles in Judea, and 
been envied for it by the He- 
brews, during the governorship 
of Pilate over Jerusalem ‘and the 
high-priesthood of Annas and 
Caiaphas, there came from the 
Jews to these same high-priests 
Judas, Levi, Nephthalim, Alex- 
ander, Syrus and many others 
accusing Christ, whom also the 
before- mentioned high - priests 
sent to tell these things likewise 
to Pilate the governor. 

These departing said to him, 
that a man walks about in this 
city whose father is called Joseph, 
and his mother is Mary, but he 
calls himself a king and Son of 
God ; and though a Jew, he sub- 
verts the Scriptures, and destroys 
the sabbaths. 

Pilate, the governor, ques- 
tioned, therefore, to learn from 
them : How does he destroy the 





9 The Greek versions in Paris A and D differ. 


A often uses forms of 


réyew where D uses those of eizreiv ; D inserts tva or drt where A does 


not. 
such peculiarities, 
10 Monac. A. 


Effort has been made, even at cost of good English, to reproduce 
A repeatedly has “ Jews” 


where D has ‘* Hebrews.” 


§ 2.) 


PARIS A. 
nee gre and blind and the 
owed [by infirmity] and the 
lepers ‘id the possessed of de- 


mons, and he is a sorcerer, and 
casts out demons through Beelze- 
bub, and all things are subject to 
him. 

Pilate says to them : This cast- 
ing out of demons'is not through 
an unclean spirit, but through 
[some] god. sculapius." 

The j ews say to Pilate: We 
beseech your highness that he 
may be placed before your tribu- 
nal and be inquired into. 

Pilate addressing them says: 
Inform me how I, who am but a 
governor, can [judicially] ex- 
amine a king. | 

They say to him : We do not 
call him a king, but he calls 
himself so. 


RESPECT OF PILATE FOR JESUS. 


109 


PARIS D. 
sabbaths? And they answered 
saying that, He heals the sick on 
the sabbath. Pilate answered : 
If he makes the sick well, he 
does nothing evil. 

They say to him: If he 
ea the cures properly, the 
evil would be small, but he per- 
forms them by the use of magic 
and by companionship with 
demons. 

Pilate says: Healing a sick 

erson is not a diabolic work, 
but a favor from [some] god. 


The Hebrews said: We be- 
seech your highness to summon 
him that you may ascertain for 
yourself what we allege. 


§ 2. Respect of Pilate and his Attendant for Jesus. 


Pilate, addressing his personal 
messenger,” says: Let Jesus be 
brought in a becoming manner. 

The personal messenger going 
out, and recognizing him, did 
him homage, and took the cata- 
ploma*® of [in?]his hand and 
spread it upon the ground, and 
says to Jesus: Lord, walk thus 
[i.e. on this] and enter; the 
governor calls thee. 


Thereupon Pilate the govern- 
or, taking off his mandeliwm — 
that is, his fascial,48 —- gave it 
to one of his servants named 
Rachaab —that is, to his per- 
sonal messenger,#—saying to 
him, Go and show this to Jesus 


and say to him: Pilate the gov- 


ernor calls thee to come to him. 
Therefore the servant departed 
and finding Jesus 





 Asculapius may have been a marginal explanation of, or substitute 


for, the preceding expression. 
22 Literally, cwrsor, runner. 


18 Some copyist who had two manuscripts may have understood two 
different readings as being alike in meaning. 

14 The remark in the preceding note applies here also. 

16 Cataploma, mandeliwm and fascial, xardrdwpa, pavdiduov, paxewdLov 


or daxid\uov, are nowhere accurately described. 


be a cloak. 


I suspect cataploma ta 


110 


PARIS A, 


The Jews, perceiving what the 
attendant did, complained to 
Pilate, saying : Why did you not 
summon him to come by the 
common crier instead of by your 
personal messenger? (Monac. 


A, for the personal messenger, . 


as soon as he saw him, did him 
homage, and spread on the ground 
his fascial, and has made him to 
walk as a king.) 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


[NOTE A. 


PARIS D. 
on Palm-Sunday, sitting an 
ass. And the Hebrews strewed 
their garments in the way, and the 
ass walked on the garments. And 
the servant, seeing such honor 
ona Jesus, himself also became 

16 . 


summoned him, spreading upon 
the ground the mandelium of 
Pilate, urging him also to w 
upon it. J 

Which the Hebrews pei , 
and being greatly chagrined, 
came to Pilate,!” the governor, 
complaining of him. Why had 
he deemed Jesus worthy of such 
honor? 


§ 3. Regard of Common People for Jesus. 


Pilate, calling the messenger, 
says to him: Why have you 
done this ? 

The messenger says to him: 
Lord, governor, when you sent 
me in Jerusalem to Alexander, I 
saw him sitting on an ass, and 
the Hebrews #8 holding branches 
in their hands were crying, Ho- 
sanna, Blessed is he that cometh. 
And others strewed their gar- 
ments, saying, Save Nees: in 
the highest. Blessed be he that 
cometh in the name of the Lord. 


And he inquiring of the ser- 
vant, who had been sent, why he 
had done this, the servant an- 
swered, saying : When you sent 
me to the Jew Alexander, I met 
Jesus entering the gate of the 
city, sitting on an ass, and I saw 
the Hebrews, that they spread 
their garments in the way, and 
the ass walked upon the gar- 
ments; and others cut branches 
and went out to meet him, and 
eried, Hosanna in the highest. 
Blessed be he who comes in the © 
name of the Lord. It became 
me therefore to do the same, and 
I did the same. 





16 An obvious yi’ ears from which something has been omitted 


in the manuscript. 


ilo (p. 507) has erroneously substituted Lord’s 


Day of the Hebrews for Palin Sunday. : 
17 An awkwardness in the Greek renders probable, in this and other 
instances on pp. 108, 109, that Pilate was copied from one manuscript 


and governor from another. 


18 Literally, the children of the Hebrews. 


$3] 


PARIS A. 

The Jews say to the attendant 
messenger: ‘he Hebrews were 
crying out in Hebrew. How 
then did you who are a Gentile 
[literally, a Greek] understand 
the Hebrew ? 

The messenger says to them : 
I asked a certain one of the He- 
brews, What is it which they 
ery in Hebrew? and he inter- 
preted it for me. 

Pilate says to them: What 
were they crying in Hebrew ? 

They say to him : Hosanna, 

Pilate says to them : Hosanna 
— What is the translation of it ? 

[They say to him] Do save. 

Pilate says to them: You 
yourselves testify to the words 
uttered by the children [of the 
Hebrews]. What wrong has the 
messenger done ? 


They were silent. 


REGARD OF COMMON PEOPLE FOR JESUS. 


111 


PARIS D. 

The Jews, hearing these words, 
said to him ; You being a Roman, 
how did you understand what 
was said by the Hebrews ? 


The servant answered and 
said: I asked one of the He- 
brews, and he told me these 
things. 


Pilate said: And what does 
Hosanna mean ? 

The Jews said : Save us, Lord. 

Pilate answered: Since you 
confess that your people [liter- 
ally, your children], unversed 
in evil spoke thus, how can 
you now bring an accusation 
and allege what you do against 
Jesus ? 

The Jews were silent and had 
nothing to reply.!® 





19 Here follow several interpolations, of which the first was not im- 


robably added soon after the Jewish war under Hadrian. 
5; * About that time Jesus called to him whom he wished and they 


OWS : 


It is as fol- 


went to him. And he appointed twelve, that they should be with him, 
and that he might send them to announce his name-in the whole world. 
He commenced also to establish a New Law for the abolition of sab- 
baths, the Jewish cessation [from occupation] which they had under the 
old covenant from God and Moses. If any Jew died on the sabbath they 
did not bury him before the following day. But Jesus, wishing to com- 
plete [in the sense also, of ‘‘ bring to a conclusion” ] that Law, gave 
strength to the paralytic man on the sabbath. He healed on the sabbath 
the daughter of the chief of the Synagogue [and ?] her who had an issue 
of blood. The blind, the leper, and demoniac, and dead, he healed them 
on the sabbath. On the sabbath he awoke Lazarus [who had been dead] 
four days. And on this account the Jews sought to kill him, because 
thereafter the whole people followed him: —then the Jews were moved 
to envy, because he awoke him who had been putrid four days.” : 
On the views here expressed concerning the sabbath, compare Judaism, 
Ch. XI. § 1. The word translated to complete is often rendered to fulfil. 
The foregoing is followed by a copious extract from John’s Gospel, 
having the twofold commencement, ‘‘ And as recorded by (the Lvangelist 


112 : ACTS OF PILATE. [NOTE A. 
? 


PARIS D. 
Then they bring Jesus to 
Pilate the governor, and it was 
the day of preparation, early. 
And Judas seeing — that also — 
how they led Jesus before Pilate, was [self-] condemned in trembling and 
fear because of his base plotting against him, and in his despair repent- 
ing, wishing to return the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and 
to the elders of the Jews: and these evil-doers and accusers knowing 
him — what Judas wished to do, — uttered themselves against him in 
unison, At the same time also the people accused and insulted him 
alone, and put on him the blame ; 2 
of the crucifixion. And they all cried out against him and said ;: Traitor, 
law-breaker, faithless one, thankless one, murderer of his teacher whose 
Jeet had been washed by that [teacher], carrier of his purse, and giving out 
of it as much as he wished, and hiding away as much as he wished. 
at which things he being worried, and 
not able to bear the reproaches and what he heard, and being to such a de- 
gree condemned and insulted by all, going into the temple and finding the 
chief priests and scribes and Pharisees, he said, I know truly that I Pa 
done wrong, take then the silver pieces which you have giyen me for be- 
traying Jesus to you that he might be murdered ; for I sinned in betray- 
ing innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us, see you to that. 
And the Jews, not wishing to receive the silver pieces, casting these among 
them he fled, . .. and éxpeudo@n hung himself and thus dr7yéaro 
strangled himself. But the chief priests, taking the silver pieces, said, 
It is not lawful to cast them into the treasury because it is the price of 
blood; and taking counsel, they bought with them the field of the potter 
as a burial-place for strangers ; wherefore that field is called the field of 
blood To THIS DAY. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah 
the prophet saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price 
of him who was valued, whom [they] of the sons of Israel valued ; and 
THEY gave them for the potter’s field as the Lord commanded ME.2 





John) the Written Books.” The written books might be an authority 
with a heathen, if he supposed them written by heathens. The Zvan- 
gelist would not, and his name was probably added after heathenism had 
died out. The connection of this extract is in one or two places broken 
by still later interpolations. The extract itself was not likely to be 

added before the fourth century. ~ 

20 The passage omitted after the word fled is a very late interpolation, 
in which a dead cock is made to flap its wings and crow. It may have 
been an effort to reproduce, though in a very extravagant form, the inci- 
dent which (Luke 22, 60-62) awakened repentance in Peter. 

208 The duplicate statements and to some extent the imperfections of 
phraseology in the account of Judas have been retained in the transla- 
tion, since they are not without bearing on the question whether the 
account originally belonged to, or was afterwards interpolated into, these 
Acts. Other portions, however, of Paris D are disfigured by careless- 
ness in copying. 

The passage attributed to Jeremiah is from Zech. 11, 12, 13, 


§4.J 0 


+ 


HOMAGE OF THE STANDARDS TO JESUS. 


113 


_ §4. Homage of the Standards to Jesus.2) 


: PARIS A. 

The governor says to his per- 
sonal messenger: Go out and 
bring him in, in such manner as 
you wish. 

The messenger, going out, con- 
ducted himself as before, and 
says to him, Master, the governor 
calls thee. 

And as Jesus entered, and the 
standard-bearers [stood by] hold- 
ing their standards, the figure- 
heads of the standards bowed 
and did homage to Jesus. 

And the Jews, seeing the be- 
havior of the standards, how they 
bowed and did homage to Jesus, 
cried out more _ vociferously 
against the standard-bearers. 

Pilate says to the Jews: Are 
you not filled with wonder that 
the figure-heads of the standards 
bowed and did homage to Jesus? 

The Jews say to Pilate: We 
know that the standard-bearers 
bowed (Monac. A., the figure- 
heads) and did him homage. 

The governor, addressing the 
standard-bearers, says to them : 
Why did you do this ? 

They say to Pilate: We are 
Greeks [i. e. Gentiles], and how 
could we do him homage? For 
as we held the figure - heads, 
these bowed of themselves and 
did homage. 

Pilate says to the rulers of the 
synagogue, and the elders of the 


PARIS D. 


And as Jesus came to Pilate 
the governor, Pilate’s soldiers 

did 

him homage. Others also stood 

in Pilate’s presence holding 

standards, and the standards 

bowed and did homage to Jesus. 


While Pilate was wondering at 
the occurrence, the Jews said to 
him: Lord, the standards did 
not do homage to Jesus, but the 
soldiers who were holding them 
carelessly. 


Pilate says to the chief of the 
synagogue: Select twelve power- 





21 Christian controversialists, in their contest with heathenism, alleged. 


with an eagerness, almost amounting to mania, the subjection to their 
Master’s power of demons (see Underworld Mission, p. 78 ; 3d edit., 
pp. 74, 75) and of everything idolatrous. The figure-heads of the 

oman standards were regarded by the Jews, and no doubt by many 
Christians, as idol emblems, This section is a fair specimen of the Mas- 
ter’s life, as it would have been, if devised by Christians in the second 
century. 


114 


PARIS A. 
Jewish people: Select powerful 
men, and let them hold the 
standards, and let us see whether 
they will bow themselves.2 

The elders of the Jews, taking 
twelve strong and powerful men, 
made them six by six hold the 
[two] standards, and they were 
stationed before the tribunal of 
the governor. 

And Pilate says to his atten- 
dant messenger: Put him — 
Jesus—out of the Pretorium, 
and bring him in again in such 
manner as you wish. 

And Jesus having gone out of 
the Pretorium, Pilate, address- 
ing those who held the figure- 
heads, says to them : I swear by 
Ceesar’s salvation that if the 
standards bow when Jesus re- 
turns I will cut off your heads, 
And sitting down, the governor 
commanded that Jesus should 
enter the second time. And the 
attendant messenger conducted 
himself as before, and besought 
Jesus earnestly to tread upon his 
fascial. And he walked upon 
it and entered. And as he en- 
tered, the standards again bowed 
and did homage to Jesus. 

And Pilate, being astounded 
when he saw it, sought to arise 
from his tribunal. 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


[NOTE A, 


PARIS D. 
ful men, who can hold them 
firmly ; and when this had been 


done, Pilate commanded the ser- 
vant to put Jesus out and to 
bring him in again. And when 


he came in, again the standards 
bowed and did him homage. 


Pilate therefore wondered _great- 
ly. But the Jews said: Heisa 
magician, and thereby accom- 
plishes these things. 


§ 5. Message from Pilate’s Wife. 


And while he was yet intend- 
ing to arise, his wife sent to him, 
saying: Have nothing to do with 
this just man, for I suffered 
many things on his account dur- 
ing the night. 

Pilate, addressing the Jews, 
says to them: You know that 
my wife is a Monotheist, — and 
is disposed to Judaize with you. 





2ls For éavrois read éavrovs. 


§ 6.] 


PARIS A. 

They say to him, Yes, we 
know it. Pilate says to them, 
Lo, my wife Procla sent, saying : 
Have nothing to do with this 
just man, for I suffered many 
things on his account during the 
night. 

The Jews, answering, say to 
Pilate : Did we not tell thee that 
he is a sorcerer, and that through 
Beelzebub, the Prince of the de- 
mons, all things are subject to 
him? Lo: he sent a dream- 
messenger to your wife. 


Pilate addressing Jesus, says to 
him: Such persons testify against 
you ; (Paris C., Do you not hear 
what these testify against you ?) 
Do. you say nothing? [Cp. § 1.] 

Jesus answered : Except they had 
authority [for their statements ?] 
they said nothing. Every one has 
authority over his own mouth to 
speak good and evil. They shall 
see. 


IMPUTATION ON THE MOTHER OF JESUS. 


115 


PARIS D. 


Pilate says to Jesus: You hear 
what these testify against you, and 
do you not answer? [Cp. § 1.] 


Jesus answered and said: Every 
man has authority to speak what 
he wishes, whether his wish be 
good or evil, they also, therefore, 
having authority to speak what they 
wish. 


§ 6. Answer to Imputation on the Mother of Jesus. 


The elders of the Jewish People, 
answering, say to Jesus: What 
shall we see? First, That you 
were born of fornication. Second, 
That your birth in Bethlehem was 
[the cause of] destruction to young 
children. Third, That your father 
Joseph and your mother Mary fled 
_ into Egypt, because they had no 
consolation (confidence ?**) among 
The People. 

Certain discreet persons from 


The Jews said to him: What 
have we to say concerning you ? 
First, that you were sinfully born. 
Secondly, that on your account 
when you were born, 44,000 chil- 
dren were murdered. Third, that 
your father and mother fled into 
Egypt because they had not courage 
towards [meeting] ‘‘ The People.” 

Hereupon the Jews — the twelve 
Monotheist men who were present 
there*8 — answered and said: We 





22 Most of this section is doubtless an interpolation. 


What follows 


it is intimately connected, in Paris D, with § 4. The most probable 
date of the interpolation is in the latter half of the second century, 
when, as we can infer from the charges of Celsus, Mary’s character was a 
subject of discussion. This discussion may have been prompted by the 
stress which Christians, subsequently to Hadrian’s time (Justin, Apol. 1, 
21, 33, Dial. 43, 66, 75, 84, 100; Opp. 1,180 E, 206 D E A, 2, 140 D E, 
222 A, 254 A, 286 A B, 336 A) laid on the miraculous birth of Jesus as a 
fulfilment of prophecy. 

228 Monac A. and B. 

23 On the substitution of (Gentile) Monotheists for Jews, see note 26. 


116 


PARIS A. 
among the Jewish bystanders, say : 
We do not allege him born of for- 
nication, but [on the contrary] we 
know that Joseph was betrothed to 
Mary and he [Jesus] is not born of 
fornication. 

Pilate says to the Jews, who af- 
firmed him to be [born] of fornica- 
tion: This statement of yours is 
not true, since the betrothing took 
place, as these, your fellow-coun- 
trymen, affirm. 


Annas and Caiaphas say to Pi-~ 


late : The multitude vociferates, and 
[yet] you do not believe that he 
is born of fornication. These are 
Proselytes and his disciples. 

Pilate, addressing Annas and 
Caiaphas, says to them: And what 
is a Proselyte ? ; 

They say to him: They were 
born children of Greeks [i. e. Gen- 

tiles] and have now become 
Jews. ° 

Those who maintained that 
he was not born of fornication 
— Lazarus, Asterius, Antonius, 
James, Isaiah, Annas, Samuel, 
Isaac, Phineas, Crippius, Agrippa, 
Judas — say : We have not become 
Proselytes, but are children of the 
Jews,” and speak the truth, for we 
were present at the betrothal of 
Joseph and Mary. 

And Pilate, addressing these — 
the twelve men — who maintained 
that he was not born of fornication, 
says to them: I adjure you b 
Cesar’s salvation: Is it the trut 
that he is not born of fornication ? 

They say to Pilate: We have a 
law not to swear, because it is sin- 
ful. But let them swear that it is 
not as we have said, and we are 
liable to death. 

Pilate says to Annas and Caia- 
phas: Do you answer nothing to 
these things ? 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


[NOTE A. 


PARIS D. 

allege that his birth was not sinful, 
for we know that Joseph, according 
to betrothal, received his mother 
Mary, that he should have this [a 
husband’s] charge of her. 

Pilate said : Then you speak false- 
IY, who allege that his birth is sin- 





_ %* This and some other portions of Paris A may have been specially 
intended to secure a circulation among Jews, or among such as had more 


Jewish than Gentile leanings. 


§ 6.] 


PARIS A, 
Annas and Caiaphas say to 
Pilate : 
These — twelve — are believed that 
he was not born of fornication. 
The whole multitude of 
us vociferate that he 
was born of fornication, and 
is a sorcerer 
and [yet] calls himself Son of 
God and a king ; and we are not 
believed. 


IMPUTATION ON THE MOTHER OF JESUS. 


117 


PARIS D. 


They again say to Pilate: 
The whole people testifies that 
he is a magician,”5 

The Monotheists ** the Jews an- 
swered and said: We 
were at the betrothal of his mother 
—and are Jews? — and 

know his 
whole life ; but that he is a magi- 
cian we do not know. 

Those who thus affirmed, were the 
following : — Monotheists — Laza- 
rus, Astharius, Antonius, Jacob, 
Zaras, Samuel, Isaac, Phineas, 
Crispus, Dagrippus, Humesse, and 
Judas. 

Pilate therefore says to them: I 
wish you to swear by Cesar’s life 
whether the birth of this man is free 
from sin. 

They answered and said: Our 
law ordains that we should swear to 
nothing, for an oath is w great sin. 
But by Cesar’s life we swear that 
his birth is free from sin. If we are 
falsifying, command our heads to 
be cut off. 

When these had thus spoken, 
the accusing Jews answered to 
Pilate and said: Do you trust 
more to such — a dozen only — 
Jews than to the whole multi- 
tude, and to us who know him 
well [as a] magician and blas- 
phemer who names himself Son 
of God ? 





% See 


§ 1 and conclusion of § 4. 


The repetition may either be in- 


tended to support their own assertion by that of the people, or to restore 
the connection, which had been interrupted. ; 
26 The Monotheists, here and elsewhere, is probably a reading copied 


from some manuscript, wherein it had been substituted for Jews. 


The 


substitution was likely to take place during the imbitterment of hea- 


thens against Jews under Hadrian and afterwards. 


p- 463, note 4. 


Compare Judaism, 


27 An interpolation copied from some manuscript which was intended 


to circulate specially among Jews. 


118 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


[NOTE A. 


§ 7. Pilates Conviction touching Jesus. 


PARIS A. 

Then Pilate commanded the 
whole multitude to go out 
except the —twelve— men who said 
that he was not born of fornication. 

and he 
commanded Jesus to be taken 
aside ; and Pilate [then] says to 
them : For what reason do they 
wish to kill him ? 

They say to him: They are 
actuated by party animosity be- 
cause he heals on the sabbath. 

Pilate says : Because of a good 
work, therefore, they wish to kill 
him. 


They say: Yes. 


Then Pilate, filled with anger, 
went out of the Preetorium, and 
says to them : 


T call the sun to witness that I 
find no fault in this man. 


The Jews answered and said to 
the governor: If this man were not 
an evil-doer, wE® would not have 
delivered him to you. 


Pilate said: Take him _ your- 
selves, and judge him according to 
your law. 

The Jews said to Pilate : It is not 
permitted us [by our Roman mas- 
ters] to put any one to death. 


PARIS D. 

Then Pilate commanded all to 
leave the Preetorium except only — 
the before-mentioned twelve,” 
and when this had taken place 
Pilate says to them privately : 
According to appearances the 
rulers it appears to me that the 
Jews through envy and mad- 
ness wish to murder this man 
him,” for they accuse him of 
but one thing, that he destroys 
the sabbaths. But he then does 
a good work, for he heals the 
sick. This is not a [charge which 
deserves] condemnation to death 
against the man. 

[They] the twelve say to him : 
Yes, my Lord, that is the case. 

Pilate therefore went out in 
anger and excitement, and says to 
Annas and Caiaphas, and to the 
aie and said to the crowd who 

rought Jesus: what accusation do 
you bring against this man ?* I 
call the sun to witness that I find 
no crime in this man. 

The crowd answered and said : 
If he were not a sorcerer and ma- 
gician and blasphemer ® and eyil- 
doer, WE would not have brought 
him and given him up to your 
greatness. 

Pilate said : Examine him thor- 
oughly yourselves, and, since you 
have a law, do as your law directs. 

The Jews said: Our law does 
not permit us to put any man to 
death. 





28 The specific number ¢welve is in most or all cases probably an addi- 


tion to the original document. 


29 The italicized and non-italicized passages are evidently from differ- 


ent texts. 


ee 
89 An emphasis on the WE. We are no such lovers of Gentile rule as 
to pire up our countrymen without cause. . 

8 


Perhaps from a different text. 


32 The previous narrative charges Jesus with being a magician and evil- 
doer. The italicized terms may be from some amplified text. 


§ 7.] 


PARIS A, 

Pilate said to the Jews: Did 
God command that you should not, 
but that 1 should put to death ?%8 

And Pilate, entering the Pre- 
torium again, accosted Jesus pri- 
vately and said to him: Are you 
the king of the Jews ? 

Jesus answered Pilate : Do you 
speak this of yourself, or did others 
say it to you concerning me ? 

Pilate answered Jesus, and said 
tohim: AmlaJew? Your nation 
and the chief priests gave you up 
tome. What have you done 


Jesus answered : My kingdom is 
not of [or from] this world. For if 
my kingdom were of [from] this 
world, my servants would have 
contended that 1 should not have 
been delivered to the Jews. But 
as it is, my kingdom [or, jurisdic- 
tion] is not thence. 

And Pilate said to him: There- 
fore you are a king ? 

Jesus answered him : You say [it] 
that I am a king. To this end 
have I been born and have come, 
that every one who is of the truth 
should hear my voice. 

Pilate says to him: What is 
[the] truth ? 


And Pilate, leaving Jesus, went 
out of the Pretorium to the Jews, 
and says to them: I find no fault 
in him. | 

The Jews say to him : This man 
stated, I can destroy this temple, 
and in three days I will build it. 


PILATE’S CONVICTION TOUCHING JESUS. 


119 


PARIS D. 

Pilate says: If you do not wish 
to put to death, by how much 
rather do not I. 

Then Pilate returned into the 
palace and accosted Jesus, and said 
to him : Tell me, are you the king 
of the Jews ? 

Jesus answered him and said : 
Do you utter this, or did others 
— Jews — say this to you, that you 
should ask me ? 

Pilate said: AmlaHebrew? I 
am nota Hebrew. Your people and 
the chief priests delivered you into 
my hands ; and tell me [therefore ?] 
whether you are king of the Jews. 

Jesus answered : My kingdom is 
not in this world. For if my king- 
dom were in this world, my soldiers 
would not have disregarded my cap- 
ture. My kingdom, however, is not 
in this world. 


Pilate says : You are, however, a 
king ? 

Jesus said: You have spoken it. 
For this purpose I was born, to 
bear testimony to the truth. And 
if any man is of the truth, he be- 
lieves my teaching and does it. 

Pilate says : What is truth ? 

Christ ** answered: Truth is 
from the heavens. 

Pilate says: Is there not truth 
upon earth ? 

Christ says : I am the truth, and 
how is the truth judged on earth by 
those who have earthly authority ? 

Therefore Pilate, leaving Christ 
alone, went out and says to the 
Jews : I find no fault in this man. 

The Jews answered : May we tell 
your greatness what he said? He 
said, that : I can destroy the tem- 
ple of God, and in three days re- 
build it. 





% This is omitted in Monac. A. 


Its addition resulted doubtless from 


a misapprehension of the preceding statement (John 18, 31) as referring 
to Jewish law instead of to Roman rule. 

84 This term Christ must have been a somewhat late interpolation. 
The original document used the name Jesus. 


120 ACTS OF 


PARIS A, 
- Pilate says : What temple ? 


The Jews say to him : The one 
which Solomon built during ‘forty- 
six years, but this man says he can 
destroy and build it in three days. 

Pilate again says to them: I am 
innocent of the blood of this just 
man. You shall see to it. 

The Jews say : His blood be upon 
us and upon our children. 

Pilate calling to him the elders 
and chief priests and Levites, said 
to them privately : Do not do thus, 
for you accuse him of nothing 
(Paris B., deserving) death: for 
your accusation is of healing and 
of profaning sabbaths. 

The elders of the people and the 
priests and Levites say to Pilate : 
If a man blaspheme Cesar, does he 
deserve death, or not ?. 

Pilate says : He deserves death. 

The Jews say: If any one blas- 
phemes Cwsar, he deserves death. 
But this man blasphemes God. 

Then the governor commanded 
(the Jews) 844 to go out of the Pre- 
torium, (and addressing) *> Jesus 
and says to him : What shall I do 
to you ? 

Jesus says to Pilate : As has been 
commissioned [literally, given] you. 

Pilate says: What commission 
has been given me ? 

Jesus says : Moses and the proph- 
ets foretold concerning my death 
and resurrection. 

The Jews, paying attention and 
hearing, say to Pilate : What fur- 
ther [need] have you to listen con- 
cerning this blasphemy ? 

Pilate says to the Jews: If this 
remark is blasphemous, with refer- 
ence to blasphemy,®® take him you 
and lead him away to your syna- 
gogue, and judge him according to 
your law. 


PILATE. 


[NorE A. 


PARIS D. ‘ 

Pilate says: And what temple 
did he speak of destroying ? 

The Jews said: The temple of 

Solomon, which Solomon  con- 
structed in forty-six years, 


Pilate says privately to the chief 
priests and scribes and Pharisees : 
I exhort you that you do no eyil to 
this man. For if you shall do evil 
to this man, you will do injustice ; 
for it is not just that such a man 
should die who has conferred great 
benefits on many men. 

They spoke to Pilate : My Lord, 
If he who dishonors Cesar is worthy 
of death, how much rather this man, 
who dishonors God ? 


Then Pilate ordained, and all 
went out. Then he says to Jesus : 
What do you wish that I shall do 
to you ? 


Jesus says to Pilate: Do to me 
as is ordained. 


Jesus answered,®> Moses and the 
prophets wrote that I should be 
crucified and rise again. 

The Hebrews, hearing these 
things, spoke to Pilate: Why do 
you seek to hear greater insult from 
him against God ? ; aon 

Pilate says: This is not an inso- 
lent speech against God, since it is 
written in the prophetical books. 





84a Monac. B. 


34> Paris B. 


35 No preceding remark of Pilate appears in Paris D. 
86 Doubtless a duplicate reading copied into Paris A. 


§ 8] — 


PARIS A. 
The Jews say to Pilate: Our law 
contains, If a man sin against man 
he deserves to receive forty stripes 
less one; but if against God, let 
him be stoned. 


Pilate says to them: Take him 
yourselves and punish him in such 
way as you wish. 


The Jews say : We wish that 
he may be crucified. 


Pilate says : He does not deserve 
to be crucified. 


Pilate, looking about on the 
surrounding crowds of Jews, 
sees many weeping and says: It 
is not the wish of the whole mul- 
titude that he should die. 

The elders of the Jews say: On 
this account the whole multitude 
of us came, that he may die. 


5 Pilate says: Why that he may 
ie ? 

The Jews say : Because he pro- 
nounced himself Son of God and 
king. 

§ 8. Nicodemus testifies 


But a certain man*® a Jew, 
_ Nicodemus, stood before Pilate 

and says : I beseech your excel- 
lency, command me to speak a 
few words. 

Pilate says: Speak. 

Nicodemus says: I spoke to 


TESTIMONY OF NICODEMUS. 


121 


PARIS D. 

The Hebrews spoke : Our scrip- 
ture says, If a man wrong a man, or 
insult him, he deserves to receive 
forty blows with a staff, but if he in- 
sults God [he deserves] to be stoned. 

Then came a messaye-bearer from 
Procle, Pilate’s wife, to him. The 
message said, that: Take care not 
to agree that any evil shall befall 
Jesus, that excellent man, since dur- 
iny the night I saw frightful 
dreams on his account.*7 

Pilate gave |as his] defence to 
the Hebrews : See : If you maintain 
that the speech, which you allege, 
that Jesus uttered, is an insult 
against God, take him and judge 
him according to your law. 

The Jews said to Pilate: We 
wish [permission] that we may 
crucify him. | 


Pilate turning to the people 
saw many weeping, and said : It 
seems to me [that] it is not the 
wish of the whole people, that 
this man should die. 

The priests and scribes say : We 
brought the whole people on this 
account, that you may attain cer- 
tainty that all wish his death. 

Pilate says: But what evil has 
he done ? 

The Hebrews spoke: He says he 
is a king and son of God. 


to the Miracles of Jesus. 


Thereupon a Jew —a Monothe- 
ist —named Nicodemus, stand- 
ing in the midst, spoke to Pilate : 
I beseech your greatness, permit 
me to speak a few words to you. 

Pilate said : Speak. 

Nicodemus says: I spoke to 





_% This breaks the connection, and cannot belong with what immedi- 
ately precedes and follows it. Compare the beginning of § 5. 
88 Substituted for Jew probably after the war under Hadrian in some 
MSS., thus occasioning a twofold reading. 


122 


PARIS A. 

the elders and chief priests and 
Levites, and to the whole multi- 
tude of Jews in the synagogue : 
What seek you with this man ? 
This man performs many mira- 
cles and wonderful works, which 
no one [else ever] did or will do. 
Discharge him, and cherish no 
wishes of evil against him ; for if 
these miracles which he performs 
are from God, they will stand, 
but if from men, they will come 
to nothing. 


Moses also, having been sent by 
God into Egypt, did many miracles, 
which God directed him (to do) #84 
before Pharaoh, king of Egypt. 
And there were men there in the 
service of Pharaoh —Jannes and 
Jambres— and they also performed 
not a few miracles such as Moses 
performed, and the Egyptians held 
them, Jannes and Jambres, as gods. 
But since the miracles which they 
performed were not from God, they 
were destroyed, both themselves 
and those who believed on them. 
And now discharge this man, for 
he is not deserving of death. 


The Jews say to Nicodemus: 
You have become his disciple and 
argue in his behalf. 

(Nicodemus says to them: Has 
not the governor [in your opinion] 
become his disciple, and does not 
he argue in his behalf ?) 39 

Did not Cesar appoint him [with 
authority } to deeides this question ? 

But the Jews™farieanwhile] 


ok OF PILATE. 


[Nore A, 


PARIS D. 

the priests, and the Levites and 
the scribes and the people when 
I was pfesent in the synagogue : 
What charge have you against 
this man? This man does many 
miracles, such as [any other] 
man never did or will do. Dis- 
charge him therefore ; and if his 
doings are from God, they will 
stand, but if from men, they will 
end in nothing. 


As happened also when God sent 
Moses into Egypt, and Pharaoh, 
king of Egypt, spoke to him that 
he should perform a miracle, and 
he performed it. Then Pharaoh 
had two magicians, Jannes and 
Jambres. And they also performed 
miracles by the use of magic arts, 
but not such as Moses performed. 
And the Egyptians regarded such 
magicians as gods. But beéause 
they themselves’ were not from 
God their performances ended in 
nothing. 


This Jesus, indeed, raised Laz- 
arus [from the dead], and he is 
still alive. On this account I 
beseech you, my lord, that you 
will in no wise permit oil a 
physician and life-preserver to be 
murdered. 


The Hebrews were incensed 





88 Monac. A and B. 


39 Not in Paris A. Thilo copies it from three other manuscripts. 


§ 9.] 
PARIS A. 
were menacing, and gnashing 
their teeth against Nicodemus. 
And Pilate says to them: 

Why do you gnash your teeth 
against Nicodemus, for he speaks 
truth ? 

~The Jews answered Nicode- 
mus: May you receive kis truth 
and his portion. 


Nicodemus 


says: Amen 
Amen. 


[Be it] as you say. - 


TESTIMONY OF THOSE WHO WERE CURED. 


123 


PARIS D. 
against Nicodemus, and said to 


him : May you inherit the truth 
of Jesus and have part with him. 
Nicodemus 


says: Amen, 


- Amen, Amen, be it to me as you 


say. 


§ 9. Those Cured testify to the Miracles of Jesus. 


From among the Jews, more- 
over, another springing forward 
desired to speak a word to the 
governor. 

The governor says: If you 
wish anything, speak. 

(The Jew said)**:; Thirty- 
eight years I lay on a couch, 
suffering intensely. And when 
Jesus came, many possessed by 
demons and prostrated by various 
diseases were healed by his pres- 
ence. And some very trustful 
persons, having compassion on 
me, carried me with my couch, 
and brought me to him. And 
Jesus seeing me had compassion 


on me, and spoke a word, Rise,’ 


take up thy couch and walk. 
And immediately I was healed 
and took up my couch and 
walked.*° 

The Jews say to Pilate: Ask 
him on what day he was healed. 

He having been asked by Pi- 
late concerning the day says : On 
a sabbath. 

The Jews say : Is not this in 
accordance with our affirmation 
that he cures and casts out de- 
mons on the sabbath ? 


Nicodemus having said these 
things, another Hebrew getting 
up says to Pilate: I beseech 
you, lord Pilate, hear me also. 


I lay helpless on a couch for 
thirty-eight years, and on seeing 


me he felt sorrow and spoke to 
me: Arise, take up your couch 
and depart to your house. And 
while he was uttering this I 
arose and walked about. 


The Jews say: Ask him on 
what day of the week this lifting 
also your bed occurred. 

He says : On a sabbath. 


The Jews spoke : Knd there- 
fore we say truly, that he does 
not keep the sabbath. 





398 Monac. .A. 


49 Compare John 5, 5-16. 


124 


PARIS A. 

And again another Jew spring- 
ing forward said: I was born 
blind. I heard the voice [of 
others] yet saw no countenance, 
and, as Jesus passed by, I cried 
with a loud voice : Son of David, 
take compassion on me. And he 
took compassion on me, and 
placed his hands on my eyes, 
and immediately I recovered my 
sight. 

And another springing forward 
said: I was bowed down, and 
_ he straightened me by a word.* 


And a certain woman named 
Beronice, crying out from a dis- 
tance, spoke : I had had a flow 
of blood, and I touched the hem 
of his garment, and immediately 
the flow of blood, which had 
lasted twelve years, came to an 
end. 

Then the Jews say : We have 
a law, not to admit a woman to 
testify. 

And certain other men and 
women cried out saying: This 
man is a prophet, and the de- 
mons are subject to him. 

(Pilate says to those who stated 
to him, that the demons were sub- 
ject to him [Jesus]: Why are not 
your teachersalso subject to him ?) # 

They say to Pilate: We do not 
know. 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


[NOTE A. 


PARIS D. 

Again another standing in the. 
midst spoke : I was born blind, 
and as Jesus was going along 
the road I cried to him, saying : 
Take compassion on me, Lord, 
son of David. And taking clay 
he anointed my eyes, and im- 
mediately I recovered sight. 


Another spoke: I was bent 
down, and seeing him cried out : 
Take compassion on me, Lord. 
And taking me by the hand, im- 
mediately I arose. 

Another spoke: I was a leper, 
and hehealed me solely by a word. 

A woman also named Beronice 
was there and stated, that, For 
twelve years I had a flow of 
blood, and I only touched the 
extremity of his garment, and 
immediately I was healed. 


The Jews say : The law does 
not admit a woman’s testimony. 


Other men 48 cried out : This 
man is a prophet, and the de- 
mons fear him. 


Pilate says : Why did the demons 
have no such fear of your fathers ? 


They say: We do not know.#® 





41 Compare Mark 10, 46-52, Luke 18, 35-43. 


#2 Compare Luke 13, 11-13. 
has the following : 


Instead of the foregoing, Monac. B 
‘*T had become a leper, and he healed me by a word.” 


Compare Matt. 8, 2-4, Mark 1, 40-45, Luke 5, 12-14. 

43 ** Again other Monotheists cried out: This man was a prophet. | 
From five loaves he fed five thousand, and through four loaves four 
thousand, and the demons fear him.” — Codex Venet. in Thilo, p. 564. 


44 Monac B. 


46 ‘And they gave no answer.” -— Codex Venet. in Thilo, p. 564.. 


§10.]. EFFORT OF PILATE TO SAVE JESUS. 125 


PARIS A. 

Yet another spoke to Pilate : 
That he awoke from the sepul- 
chre Lazarus, who had been dead 
since the fourth day. 

And the governor, getting into 
a tremor, says to the whole mul- 
titude of Jews: Why do you 
wish to pour out innocent blood 4 


PARIS D. 

Others again spoke : He raised, 
and by a mien only, Lazarus, 
who was [already] for the fourth 
day in the sepulchre. 

Pilate, therefore, hearing the 
resurrection of Lazarus, was 
frightened, and says to the peo- 
ple: Why do you wish to shed 
the just blood of a man ? 


§ 10. Lfort of Pilate to save Jesus. 


- And addressing (Nicodemus and 
e twelve who had stated that he 
ot born of fornication) # he 
says to them: What shall I do, for 
on is a tumult among the peo- 
ple ? 
They say to him: We do not 
know. They shall see. 


And again Pilate, addressing 
the whole multitude of Jews, 
says : You know that it is your 
custom at the feast of unleavened 
bread [to ask me] to free you one 
prisoner. I have a condemned 
prisoner in the prison, a murderer 
called Barabbas, and this Jesus, 
who stands before you —on 
whom — I find no fault in him. 
Whom do you wish that I should 
set free to you? 

They cry : Barabbas. 


And Pilate says to them: 
What then shall I do to Jesus, 
who is called the Christ ? 

They say : Let him be cruci- 
fied. 

Another of the Jews said to 
Pilate : You are plainly no friend 
of Cesar, because he proclaimed 
himself son of God and king. 


Then he summoned Nicodemus 
and the twelve Monotheisis Jews 
and spoke to them : What do you 
say that I should do, for the peo- 
ple is in commotion ? 


They say: We do not know. 
Do what you wish. What the 
people do they do unjustly to find 
out this, [namely, your will. ] 

Pilate again went out and says 
to the people : You know that, 
during the feasts of unleavened 
bread, it is customary that I 
should set free on my [your ?] 
account one of the arrested liable 
to confinement. I have in prison 
an evil-doer, a robber named 
Barabbas. I have also Jesus, 
who never did evil. Which 
therefore, of the two do you wish 
that I should set free for you ? 

The people say : Free Barab- 
bas for us. 

Pilate says : What then shall 
I do with Jesus ? 


They say : Let him be cruci- 
fied. 
Again others of them cried 


out: If you free Jesus. you are 
no friend of Cesar, for he calls 


himself son of God and king, 





% Monac. A. 


ACTS OF 


“PARIS A. 
You, therefore, wish this man for 
king and not Cesar. 


Pilate, being angry, says * to the 
Jews.: Your nation is always tur- 
bulent and you oppose your bene- 
factors. 


The Jews say: What benefactors ? 


Pilate says: As I hear, your 
God led you out from oppressive 
slavery, out of the land of Egypt, 
and saved you through the sea as if 
it had been dry land, and nourished 
you with manna in the desert and 
gave you a measure of quails, and 
from a rock supplied you with wa- 
ter to drink, and gave you a law. 
And after all these things you pro- 
voked your God, and sought out a 
molten calf, and incensed your God 
and he sought to kill you.. And 
Moses interceded for you and you 
were not destroyed. And now you 
charge me that I hate the king. 

And Pilate rising from the tribu- 
nal sought to go out. 


And the Jews cried to Pilate, 
saying: We, recognize Cesar as 
king, but not Jesus. For the magi 
offered him gifts as to a king, and 
Herod, hearing from the magi that 
a king was born, sought to kill 
him. But his father Joseph, know- 
ing thereof, took him and his mother 
and fled to Egypt. And Herod 
hearing of it destroyed the children 
in Bethlehem. 


(And Pilate hearing these words 
Srom the Jews was frightened. 
And Pilate silencing the multi- 


PILATE. [NOTE <A. 
PARIS D. 
and if you should free him he 
— becomes king *' — will take the 
kingdom of Cesar. 

Pilate thereupon got angry, and 
spoke :#8 Your race was always 


‘devilish and faithless, and yqu were 


always adversaries of your benefac- 
tors. 

The Hebrews spoke: And who 
were our benefactors ? 

Pilate says : God, who freed you 
from the hand of Pharaoh, and 
passed you through the Red Sea as 
if on dry land, and fed you... 
with water from the rock and who 
gave you a law, which you disre- 
garded, denying God ; and, unless 
Moses had stood beseeching God, 
you would all have perished by a 
bitter death. You, indeed, forgot 
all those things, and after the same 
manner, say now that I do not love 
Cesar, but hate him, and wish to 
plot against his authority. 


And having said these things 
Pilate rose in anger from his seat, 
wishing to fly from them. 

The Jews thereupon cried out 
saying: We wish Cesar to reign 
over us, not Jesus, because Jesus re- 
ceived gifts from the magi. And 
Herod also heard this, that he 
would become a king and [Herod] 
wished to put him to death and, 
to this end, sent and killed all the 
children in Bethlehem. And on 
this account also Joseph, his father, 
and his mother fled, from fear of 
these things, into Egypt. A 

Pilate therefore, hearing such 
statements, and being frightened, 
silenced all the people [and said] : 





47 Hither two texts are copied or and must be supplied, which Thilo 


has done. 


48 The remarks of Pilate were doubtless interpolated, not long after 
the Jewish rebellion against Hadrian, at a time when some Christians 
addressed the Jews in a similar strain. 

#9 The MS. must have omitted something. 


§10.] -—«zEFFORT OF PILATE TO SAVE JESUS.. 


127 
PARIS A. PARIS D. 
tudes because of their crying out, Then this is the Jesus whom Herod 
says :) © So, this is he whom Herod at that time sought to kill ? 


a 
e Jews say: Yes, this is he. 


Then Pilate, taking water, 


washed his hands _publicly,™ 
saying: I am innocent of the 


blood of this just man. You 
shall see [to it, or, the result of 


/ 


And again the Jews cry out, 
that his blood [be] on us and on 
our children. 


these brought it. 


They say to him : Yes. 

Pilate, therefore, becoming aware 
that he [Jesus] belonged to Herod’s 
jurisdiction, because descended from 
the race of Jews,®! sent Jesus to 
him. 

And Herod on seeing him re- 
joiced greatly, for he had been de- 
siring to see him, hearing of the 
miracles which he was accustomed 
to perform. Therefore he clothed 
him with white garments, and be- 
gan to ask him: Whence are you, 
and of what race ? 

But Jesus gave him no answer. 

But Herod wishing to see some 
miracle, such as [had been] formerly 

rformed by Christ, and not seein 
tant but [perceiving] that he did 
not even give him a civil answer, 
sent him again to Pilate. 

But the people cried out: Let 
him be crucified. 

Pilate, noting this, spoke to 
his servants to bring water, and 
Washing his 
hands, therefore, with the water, 
he said to the people: I am in- 
nocent of the blood of this excel- 
lent man. You shall see that 
you are murdering this man un- 
justly, 

org since neither did I find 
fault in him, nor yet Herod. For 


-on this account [Herod] sent this 


man back to me. 
The Jews spoke: His blood 
[re] upon us and upon our chil- 
ren. 
But the chief priests turbulently 
urged the people, in order to de- 
stroy him more promptly. 





50 Monac. B. 


51 This is a sample of mistakes which would have found place in the 


Gospels, had they been of late origin. 


Literally, in presence of the sun, or, to use a modern expression, i 


sight of heaven. 


128 


PARIS A. 


ACTS OF PILATE, 


[NOTE A, 


PARIS D. 

And the people again to Pi- 
late [. . . #] 

Then says Pilate to Jesus: You 
are the king of the Jews ? 

But Jesus gave him no answer. 

Pilate says : Do you not speak to 
me? Do you not know that I have 
authority to crucify you and au- 
thority to free you? 

Therefore Jesus spoke to him: 
You have not a particle of authority 
against me, except it were given 
you from above. 


§ 11. Crucifixion of Jesus. 


Then Pilate commanded the 
accused * to be brought before 
the tribunal where he was sit- 
ting, 


and gave judgment as fol- 
lows against Jesus. 

SENTENCE BY PILATE. Your 
own nation has convicted you as 
[claiming to be] a king, and on 
this account I have decreed that 
he [you] 


be first scourged, 
because of the ordinance of the 
pious kings, and then 


be hung on a cross, 


in the garden where he was [you 
were] seized and two malefactors 
with him.5+ 


Then Pilate seated himself on 
his official seat, that he might 
give judgment against Jesus. 
He decreed, therefore, and Jesus 
came before him. 

And they brought a crown of 
thorns and placed it upon his head 
and a reed upon [in his] right 
hand. 

Then he gave judgment, and 
says to him: : 


Your race says and 
testifies [concerning] you that 
you wish to reign. On this ac- 
count I decree that ~ 

they shall first strike you 

with a staff forty blows, as the 

laws of the kings decree, and that 

they shall make sport of you, and 
finally that 

‘they shall crucify you. 


Such judgment, therefore, from 
Pilate having taken place, the 
Jews began to strike Jesus, some 
with staves, others with their 
hands, others with their feet, and 
others spit in his face. 





53 Td Bio. 


The translation is conjectural. 


54 “Let Dysmas and Stegas, the two malefactors, be crucified with 


you.” — Monac. A. 


g10] 


PARIS A. 
_ And immediately they led out 
Jesus from the Preetorium 
at the same time with the two 
malefactors. 


| And 
when they arrived at the spot, 


the Sadicrs divested Jesus of his 
garments, and girded him with 
a linen cloth, 

and encircled his 
head with a crown of thorns, 





PARIS D. 

Immediately, therefore, hav- 
ing prepared the cross, they took 
(him away to crucify him. And 

aving given this [the cross] to 
him, they hurried to be on their 
way... 

And as he was thus going, car- 
rying also his cross, he came to the 
gate of the city of Jerusalem. But 
as he was not able to walk, because 
of the many blows, and because of 
the weight of the cross, these [peo- 
ple] because of the desire which 
the Jews had to crucify him [with] 
speed, taking © from him the cross, 
gave it to a Cyrenian who met 
them, Simon by name, [who was] 
coming from the country, who had 
two sons, Alexander and Rufus, — 
and he was from the city of Cyrene 
—they gave him, therefore, the 
cross. Not out of compassion to- 
wards Jesus, and to lighten him of 
the burden, but desiring, as has 
been said, to murder him sooner, 
they impressed him, the Cyrenian, 
that he should carry his cross. 
And they bring him to the place 
Golgotha, which Atrahslated is, 
Place of a Skull.56 

Then were saved . . . ® to the 
place called Skull, which was 
strown [or, paved] with stones ; 
and there the Jews [7] placed 
the cross. 

And the soldiers took off his 
garments and divided these 
things among themselves, 


And they offered him to drink 
wine mingled with myrrh, which 
he did not take. 

And they put on him a purple 





55 The Greek is ungrammatical and confused, owing apparently to the 
mingling of two, or more, narratives. 

56 Here follows in Paris D an interpolation later by several centuries 
than the original document, for it styles Mary Mother of God. 

563 There must here be an omission. Cp. Greek copy (Am. edit.) of 
Paris D, p. 22, note 1. 


130 


PARIS A, 


and crucified him, and at the 


same time suspended the two 
malefactors with him. 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


[NOTE a. 


PARIS D. 

cloak, that is a purple Rosos 
[Rasos ?], and weaving a crown of 
thorns they put it on his head, and 
bending their knees before him 
they mocked him, saying: Hail, 
king of the Jews! And spitting on 
him, they took a reed and struck 
him on his head. And after they 
had mocked him they took off the 
cloak, that is the Rasos [Rosos ?], 
which is called purple. And they 
5 on him his own garments and 
ed him away that he might be cru- 
cified. And crucifying him they 
divided his garments, casting lots 
upon them [to determine] what each 
one should take.*7 , 


And it was the sixth ® hour of 
the day. They lifted him on 
the cross, and crucifying him 
destroyed ® him. 

And the inscription of his alleged 
crime was written over him in 
Greek and Romaic and Hebrew 
letters, saying, This is the king of 
the Jews. 

And they crucified with him 
two robbers, one on the right 
and one on the left. 


And the passers-by uttered abus- 
ive language towards him, shaking 
their heads and saying: Oh, you, 
who destroy the temple and build it 
again in three days, save yourself 
and descend from the cross. In like 
manner the chief priests with the 
scribes said mockingly toeach other: 
The Christ, the son of Israel, saved 
others. He cannot save himself. 
Let him now descend from the cross, 
that we may see and believe him. 





67 The reference by Justin Martyr (Apol. 1, 35) to this passage implies 
that in the middle of the second century it was to be found, in the dets 
of Pilate, corresponding apparently with the text here given. 

58 The manuscript here uses a numeral. 

59 The translation of this word is conjectural. 

60 Here follows in Paris D an interpolation of monkish times, a long 
lamentation by the ‘‘ Mother of God.” 


g 11] 


PARIS A. 
But Jesus said : Father, forgive 
Gate for they know not what they 
0. 


And the soldiers divided his 
garments. 

And the people stood looking on. 
And the chief priests and elders of 
the people sneered at him saying : 
He saved others and cannot save 
himself. Ifhe is the Son of God, 
let him descend now from the cross 
and we will believe on him. And 
the soldiers made game of him, 
coming and offering him vinegar 
and gall and they said: If you are 
the Christ, the king of the Jews, 
save yourself. 

And Pilate, after the sentence, 
commanded also an inscription to 
be written, [specifying] the charge 
against him, in Greek letters.®1 

And a certain one of the sus- 
pended malefactors, Gestas by 
name, said to Jesus: If you are the 
Christ save yourself and us. 


But Demas, the other, answer- 
ing, rebuked him, saying: Have 
youfno fear of God, because you are 
under the same condemnation ? 
And we [are condemned] justly, for 
we indeed receive the proper [con- 
sequences] of what we have done. 
But this man has committed no 
crime. And he said to Jesus, Re- 
member me, Lord, when you shall 
come in your kingdom. 

Jesus spoke to him: Verily I 


CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 


131 


PARIS D. 

Then Jesus cried with a loud 
voice saying : Donot charge this sin 
to them, for the wretched [ones] do 
not know what they are doing. 

Then he says: I am thirsty. 
And immediately one of the sol- 
diers ran, and taking a sponge and 
filling it, and placing it on a reed, 
gave him to drink. And having 
tasted he would not drink. 


But the Jews standing and look- 
ing on ridiculed him and said : If 
you said truly that you are the Son 
of God, descend from the cross, and 
immediately, that we may believe 
on you. Others ridiculing him, 
said : He saved others, he cured 
and healed others, infirm, palsied, 
lepers, demoniacs, blind, lame, 
dead, and he cannot likewise save 
himself. 


And the robber, crucified on his 
left hand, said to him : If you are 
the Son of God, descend from the 
cross and save yourself and us. 
His name was Gestas. But the 
robber crucified on the right, named 
Dysmas, reproached that same rob- 
ber, saying: O miserable and 
wretched [man], do you not fear 
God? We indeed suffer what our 
deeds deserve. But he has done 
and committed no crime what- 


ever. And this robber on the 
right turning, accosted Jesus 
and says: Lord, remember me 


when you shall come in your 
kingdom. But. Jesus spoke to 
him: Verily: I say to you this 





$1 **Tn Romaic and Hebrew letters, in accordance with what the Jews 
stated that he is king of the Jews.” — Monac. B. The same with omis- 
sion of ‘‘ and Hebrew” is found in Monac. A. 


132 


‘ PARIS A. 
say to you, Demas: To-day you 
- shall be with me in Paradise. ®? 


§ 12. Accompaniments of the Crucifixion. 


And it was about the sixth 
hour. 


And darkness took place 
upon the earth until the ninth 
hour, the sun being darkened. 
_ And the veil of the temple was 
rent in two from top to bottom. 


And Jesus crying with a loud 
voice, said: Father, into thy 
hands I commit my spirit. And 
as, uttered this he gave up the 
spirit. [Cp. § 11 of Paris D.} 


The centurion, seeing what took 
place, glorified God, saying that : 
This man is just. And all the 
crowds who were passing to see 
this spectacle, when they saw the 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


[NOTE a. 


PARIS D. 

day you shall be with me in Para- 
dise. 8 

Then Jesus crying with a loud 
voice, spoke : Father, into thy 
hands will I commit my spirit. 
And with this utterance he ex- 
pired. [Cp. § 12 of Paris A. ] 


And it was about the sixth 
hour. And immediately a very 
great earthquake occurred over 
the whole earth, so that the 
whole world shuddered. And 
because of thé excessive earth- 
quake the rocks were rent and 
the sepulchres of the dead were 
opened, and many BoDIEs of the 
Just were awakened,® and the 
sun was darkened, and the veil 
of the temple was rent in the 
middle, and darkness took place 
over the whole earth until the 
ninth hour, : 


And when all these things took 
place, the Jews being frightened, 
some of them said that In reality 
this man was just. Longinus, 
the centurion, standing up boldly, 
spoke : Truly, this man was Son of 
God. Others coming and seeing 
him, [commenced] beating their 
breasts, and immediately turned 


occurrences, returned, beating their 


breasts. back again from fear. 





62 This can scarcely have been added before the fourth century. See 
Underworld Mission, pp. 144, 145 ; 3d edit. pp. 138, 139. 

68 Another monkish interpolation of Paris D occurs here. It narrates 
that when Joseph and the ‘‘ Mother of God” fled to. Egypt thirty-three 
years previously, the leprous child of the right-hand robber was cured by 
ser washed in the same water which had been used for the infant 

esus. 

64 Cp. close of § 13. Did the souls await the resurrection of Jesus ? 
The genuineness of the similar passage in Matthew 27, 52, 53, has been 
questioned. See Norton, Genwineness, 1, Appendix, Note A, Section v. 

65 In some of the MSS. the Hebrew of Psalm 31, 5 (Septwagint, 30, 6) 
is here copied with the Greek appended as a translation. 


§ 12.] 


rf PARIS A. 

But the centurion reported to 
the governor all the occurrences. 
And the governor and his wife 
hearing of it were exceedingly 
grieved [depressed ?] and neither 
ate nor drank on that day. And 
Pilate summoning the Jews 
spoke to them : You have beheld 

e occurrences. 


But they spoke to him: An 
eclipse of the sun has taken 
place, a usual thing.® 

And all the relatives of Jesus 
stood afar, and the women who 
followed him from Galilee, look- 
ing at these things. 


ACCOMPANIMENTS OF THE CRUCIFIXION. 


133 


PARIS D. 

But the centurion, having no- 
ticed all such wonders, going to 
Pilate, narrated these things. 
But he hearing [the narration] 
wondered and was astounded, 
and because of his fear and grief, 
would not eat nor drink on that 
day. He gave notice, moreover, 
and the whole Sanhedrim came 
so soon as the darkness had 
passed. And Pilate spoke to the 
people : You see how a great earth- 
quake took place ; You see how 
the veil of the temple was rent 
in the midst ; You see how dark- 
ness took place over the whole 
inhabited earth from the sixth to 
the ninth hour. In reality I did 
well in exhorting you not to 
murder the excellent man. 

But all the miscreants were 
utterly unbelieving. On the 
contrary they said to Pilate, 
that : Such darkness is an eclipse 
of the sun, similar to what has 
occurred in other times. 

Pilate says to them: If this 
darkness be an eclipse of the sun 
as you say, what do you pro- 
nounce the other marvels and 
shuddering prodigies ? 

And they had nothing to an- 


‘swer, 


And while he was saying these 
things, the Jews coming and (?) 
spoke to Pilate: My Lord, the in- 
scription above the head of Jesus 
was not written properly, for it tes- 
tifies that he is our king. There- 
fore we beseech you, that you de- 
cree and write there, that this man 
said that he was king of the Jews. 





66 This oversight was subsequently remedied in some copies by an in- 


terpolation. 


According to Monac. A, ‘‘ Pilate said to them : Foulest of 
men, this is your truthfulness in all things. 


I know that this never oc- 


curs except at new moon (literally, at the moon’s birth]. You ate your 
passover yesterday on the fourteenth of the month, and [yet] you say an 
eclipse of the sun occurred.” — Thilo, p. 594, n. 


134 


PARIS 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


[NoTE “ 


PARIS D. 

Pilate said to them : What I have 
written, I have written. 

Then they say to him: We have 
the feast of unleavened bread all 
of to-morrow, and we beseech you, 
since the crucified yet breathe, that 
their bones may be broken, and 
that they may be taken down. 

Pilate spoke : Let this take place. 
He sent soldiers, therefore, and 
they found the robbers breathing, 
and broke their legs. But finding 
Jesus dead, and[?] they did not 
touch him. Then one soldier leay- 

ing [his companions] and [?] pierced 
Jesus with a spear in the right side, 
and immediately there came out 
blood and water. %6 ) 


§ 13. Joseph esteems and buries Jesus. 


And, behold, a man. named 
Joseph, who was a councillor, a 
good and just man, 

(Monac, B., this man had 
not assented to their design nor 
action) — from Arimathea, a city of 
the Jews— himself also awaiting 
the kingdom of God, this man 


But towards evening of the 
Preparation, that was closing, a 
certain Joseph, a well-born and 
wealthy man, a Monotheist, a 
Jew, finding the Nicodemus 
whom the previous: account has 
made known, says to him: I 
know that you loved Jesus while 
he was alive, and gladly heard 
his teachings, and I saw you 
combating the Jews on his ac- 
count.. If it seems good to you, 
therefore, let us go to Pilate and 
ask the body of Jesus for burial, 
since it is a great sin that he 
should lie unburied. 


Tam afraid, says Nicodemus, 
lest [owing to] Pilate being 
angry I should suffer some in- — 
jury. But if you, going alone 
and asking, should receive the 
dead, then I also will accompany 
you and will co-operate in per- 





663 Here follow for the second time citations from Jeremiah, Zechariah 
and Isaiah, which had already been interpolated into a passage of John. 


mentioned in note 19. 


§ 13.) 


PARIS. A. 


coming to Pilate, re- 
uested the body of Jesus. And 
ilate permitted [or, directed] 
that the body be given him. 
And taking it he wrapped it in 
pure linen and ener it in a 
rock-hewn sepulchre, in which 
no one had ever yet lain. 
And the Jews, hearing that 
Joseph had asked for the body 
-. esus, were seeking both 


and the twelve who had 
said that Jesus was not born of for- 
nication, and for Nicodemus and 
many others, who, springing for- 
ward before Pilate, had made mani- 
fest his good works. 

And all [others of them] having 
concealed themselves, Nicodemus 
only made his appearance to them, 
because he was a ruling man of the 
Jews. And Nicodemus says to 
them : How can you [dare] enter 
the synagogue ? 

The Jews say: How do you 
[dare] enter the synagogue? For 
you are his accomplice and his 

ag [be] yours in the future 


Nicodemus says: Amen, Amen. 

In like manner Joseph, comin 
forward from [his concealment ?] 
said to them : Why are you vexed 
at me because I asked the body of 
Jesus ? Behold, I put it inmy new 
sepulchre, wrappingit in pure linen, 
and I rolled a stone against the 


JOSEPH ESTEEMS AND BURIES JESUS. 


135 © 


PARIS. D. 
forming thoroughly all things 
appropriate to burial.” 


The Jews having learned that 
these things had been done by 
Joseph and Nicodemus, were 
very indignant at them, and the 
high- riests, Annasand Caiaphas, 
manifesting [it] to Joseph, spoke 
to him: Why did you perform 
this sepulture for the dead 
Jesus ? . 





87 Here follows a passage in which Mary is called Mother of God. It 
is of course later by centuries than the original document. 


6 TlapexBas. 


136 


PARIS A. 
door of the sepulchre. And you 
have not done well towards the 
just man, that having crucified 
him you did not repent, but raised 
a spear against him. 


The Jews, having heard these 
things from Joseph, immediately 
seizing him, commanded that le be 
made safe until the (first)®* day of 
the week, saying: The hour does 
not permit doing anything against 
you, because the sabbath is about 
dawning, and you will not be 
deemed worthy of sepulture, but 
we will give your flesh to the birds 
of heaven. 

Joseph says to them : This is the 
speech of the arrogant Goliath, who 
uttered contumely towards the liv- 
ing God and the holy David. But 
God spoke through the prophets : 
To me [belongs] thorough ven- 
geance ; I will repay, says the Lord. 
And now the uncircumcised in 
flesh, but circumcised in heart, 
taking water, washed his hands in 
presence of the sun, saying: I am 
innocent of the blood of this just 
man, you shall see. And answer- 
ing Pilate you said : His blood [be} 
upon us and upon our children. 
And now I fear lest the anger of 
the Lord be close upon you and 
upon your children, in accordance 
with what you [then] said. 

But the Jews having heard these 
words were embittered in soul, 


and laying hold of Joseph, 
seized him and shut him into a 
house where there was no win- 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


[NOTE A. 


PARIS D. 


Joseph says: I know Jesus 
[to have been] a just man, true 
and good in all things, and I 
know you, that from envy you 
accomplished his murder, and 
therefore T took charge of his 
burial. 


Then the high-priests getting 
angry and seizing Joseph, threw 
him into prison and said to him : 
Except to-morrow [were upon 
us |§§* we would have put you to 
death! For the present remain 





68a Monac. B. 


68b The Sabbath began Friday evening. 


§13.] JOSEPH ESTEEMS AND BURIES JESUS. 


PARIS A. 


dow. (7?) And guards remained 
at the door. 


137 


PARIS D. 
under guard, but on the Lorp’s 
Day ® early you will be deliv- 
ered todeath. They spoke these 
things, and marked with a seal 
the prison, which was secured by 
all manner of locks. 

The Preparation having come 
therefore thus to an end, the 
Jews, early on the sabbath, went 
off to Pilate and spoke to him: 
That deceiver, while yet alive, 
ape [to the effect] that after 
three days he should be raised. 
Lest his disciples, stealing him by 
night, should mislead the people 
by such a falsehood, command, 
we pray you, that his sepulchre 
be guarded. 

Pilate, therefore, gave them 
five hundred soldiers, who seated 
themselves on the sepulchre to 

uard it. Placing also seals 
fee the stone of the sepulchre, 
they guarded it during the sab- 
bath until the first dawn of the 
Lorp’s Day. 

After this a great earthquake 
again took place first, then a 
lightning-bearing angel of the 
Lord coming from heaven rolled 
the stone from the sepulchre 
and sat upon it. And from 
[fear] of the angel the sol- 
diers became as dead. Then the 
Lord arose, wakened Adam and 
all the prophets, whom the devil 
had in his power. He there 
wakened also all believers on 
him.” 





_ 8 Anachronisms like this would have crept into the Gospels had they 


_been written after the first century. 


% The original document seems to have ended here. 


The following 


doxology is subjoined'in Paris D and Cod. Venet. : 
‘* The name of the Lord be praised 
With his Father and the all-holy spirit 
Now and always and to ages of ages.” 
as also the following subscription in Paris D : 
**End of the Holy Sufferings and beginning of Hs resurrection ; of 


our Lord Jesus Christ.” 


138 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


[NOTE A, 


§ 14. Heathens testify to the Resurrection. 


And on the sabbath the chiefs 
of the synagogue and priests 
and Levites decreed that all 
should assemble (literally, be 
found] in the synagogue on the 
first day of the week. And ris- 
ing early, all plotted in the 
synagogue, by what death they 
should kill Joseph. 

And while the council [or Sanhe- 
drim] was sittipg, they commanded 
him to be brought with much igno- 
miny. And having opened the 
door they did not find him. And 
the whole peoplewas astounded, and 
they became amazed, because they 
found the seals and doors sealed, 
and that Caiaphas had the key. 
And thereafter, they no longer 
dared to lay their hands on those 
who had spoken before Pilate con- 
cerning Jesus. 

And while they were yet sit- 
ting in the synagogue, 

and wonder- 
ing on account of Joseph, 


some of the 
guard came, whom the Jews had 
requested from Pilate to watch 
the sepulchre of Jesus, lest the 
disciples coming should steal him. 
And they announced to the chiefs 
of the synagogue and priests and 
Levites, stating the events which 
had taken place, how “a great 
earthquake occurred while we 
were watching the sepulchre, and 
we saw how an angel descended 
from heaven and rolled away the 
stone from the door of the sep- 
ulchre and sat upon it. 
And his appearance was like 
lightning, and his garment white 
as snow, and from fear of him we 
became as dead.” 


When, therefore, the Lord’s 
Day dawned, the chief [or high] 
priests held a council with the 
Jews, and sent to put Joseph out 
of prison, for the pane of kill- 
ing him. And having opened 
[it | they did not find him. And 
they were surprised at this, as to 
how, the doors being shut and 
the keys safe, and the seals hay- 
ing been found [unbroken] but 
Joseph was become invisible. 


And hereupon a soldier, one 
of those who had guarded the 
sepulchre, coming up, spoke in 
the synagogue : Learn that Jesus 
has risen. 


The Jews say: How? 


But he said: “First a great 
earthquake took place, then a 
lightning-bearing angel of the 
Lord coming from heaven, rolled 
the stone [from] the sepulchre 
and sat upon it, and from fear of 
him all we soldiers 


became as dead, and 


were unable 
either to fly or speak. And we 





71 In Monac. A this reads, “and we lay in great fright.” 


/ 


§ 14,] HEATHENS TESTIFY TO THE RESURRECTION. 


PARIS A. 

And we heard the angel saying 
to the women who stayed by the 
tomb of Jesus, and he said; Be 
not afraid, for I know that you 
seek Jesus the crucified. He is 
not here, for he has risen in ac- 
cordance with what he spoke. 
Approach ; see the place where 
the Lord was lying ; and going 

uickly speak to his disciples, 
that he has risen from the dead, 
and behold, he precedes you into 
Galilee. There ye shall see him 
in accordance with what he spoke 
to you. 


The Jews say: To what women 
was he talking ? 


The guards say: We do not 
know who they were. 

The Jews say: Why did you not 
seize the women ? 

The guards say: We were be- 
come as ‘if dead from fright, not 
hoping tosee the light of day ; and 
how could we seize them ? 

The Jews say : As the Lord live 
we do not believe you. . 


The guards say: You saw so 
many miracles in that man and 
you did not believe, and how can 
you believe us? For you swore 
well that as the Lord lives, we do 
not believe you. For he [the Lord] 
does live. 

again the guards say: We 
have heard that you shut up him 
who asked for the body of Jesus, 
sealing also the door, and having 
opened it, you did not find him. 
Give us Joseph, and we will give 
you Jesus. 

The Jews say: We will give you 
Joseph ; Give us Jesus also. 

The guards say: First do you 
give us Joseph, and then we will 
give you Jesus likewise. 


139 


PARIS D. 
heard the angel saying to the 
women, who had come thither 
to see the sepulchre, 
that: Be not 
afraid, for I know that you seek 
Jesus. He is not here, but has 
risen as he told you beforehand. 
Bend down and see the sepulchre 
where the body of Jesus lay. 

Go, how- 
ever, and tell his disciples that 
he has risen from the dead, and 
that they shall go in [into] Gal- 
ilee, for there they shall find 
him. 

On this account I {the soldier] 
tell you this previously. 


The Jews say to the soldiers: 
What women were they that came 
to the sepulchre ? 


and why did you 

not seize them ? . 

The soldiers say: From fear, and 

[from] the sight alone of the angel, 

we were neither able to speak nor to 
move. 


The Jews spoke: As the God of 
Tsrael lives that we believe nothing 
of what you say. 

The soldiers say: Jesus per- 
formed such miracles and you did 
not believe [him], and [how] are you 
to believe us now? You say truly, 
that God lives, and indeed he truly 
lives even whom you crucified. 


But did we not hear that you had 
Joseph shut up in prison, then 
opening the doors you did not find 
him. Give us Joseph, and we will 
also, on this condition, give you 
Jesus. 


140 


PARIS A. 
The Jews say: Joseph has de- 
parted to his own city. 


The guards say to. the Jews: 
And Jesus is [gone] into Galilee, as 
we heard from the angel who rolled 
away the stone, that: He precedes 
you into Galilee. 

And the Jews, having heard 
these words, were greatly vexed, 
saying : This account must by 
no means be heard [lest] all be 
inclined towards Jesus. And 
holding a council among them- 
selves, they laid down a con- 
siderable quantity of silver and 
‘gave it to the soldiers, saying: 
State, that His disciples, coming 
by night, stole him while we 
were asleep. And, if this should 
be heard by the governor, 


we will persuade 
him and will save you any anx- 
iety. | 
But they taking the silver did 
as they had been taught. And 
this report has circulated among 
the Jews UNTIL THE PRESENT 
TIME.” 


§ 15. Jews testify 


But Phineas, a certain priest, 
and Addas,a teacher, and Angeeus, 
a Levite, coming down from Gal- 
ilee in[to] J adie, narrated to 
the chiefs of the synagogue and 
to the priests and Levites, that 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


[NOTE A. 


‘ PARIS D. 

The Jews say: Joseph, a fugi- 
tive from prison, you will find him 
in Arimathea, his country. 

The soldiers also say: Go you 
also to Galilee and you will find 
Jesus, as the angel stated to the 
women. 


Hereupon, being frightened, 
the Jews spake to the soldiers : 
See that you utter to no one this 
account, and [lest ul all shall be- 
lieve on Jesus. To which end 


also they gave them much sil- 
ver, that they might state : While 
we slept his disciples came and 
stole him. 


The soldiers spoke: We fear 
lest Pilate should hear that we 
took silver, and should put us to 
death. 

The Jews spoke: Take it and 
we pledge ourselves to render an 
apology to Pilate in your behalf. 
Only state that you slept. 

And the soldiers took the sil- 
ver, and stated as they had been 
ordered, and UNTIL THE PRESENT 
DAY such a false account is cir- 
culated by the Jews. 


to the Resurrection. 


And, after a few days, three 
men came from Galilee to Jeru-. 
salem. One was a priest named 
Phineas: another a _ Leyite 
named Angeus, but the remain- 
ing one a soldier named Adas. 
These came to the chief-priests 
and stated to them and to the 





72 The language coincides closely with that of Matthew, 28, 11-15. 


See p. 89. 


§15.] JEWS TESTIFY TO THE RESURRECTION. 


PARIS A. 
they saw Jesus and his disciples 
sitting on mount Admonition. 
And he said to his disciples : 


Going into the whole world, pro- 
claim to all the creation that who- 
ever believes and is baptized will 
be saved, but the unbeliever will 
be condemned, 


And these miracles shall follow 
believers. In my name they shall 
cast out demons, they shall speak 
in he them] new languages, and 
shall lift serpents in their hands, 
and if they shall drink anything 
deadly, it shall not injure them. 
They shall lay their hands on the 
sick and these shall get well, 


While Jesus was yet speaking 
to his disciples, we saw him 
taken up into heaven. 


The elders and priests and Le- 
vites say: Give glory to the God of 
Israel and make acknowledgment 
to him if ye have heard and seen 
what ye narrate. 

The narrators say, that: As the 
Lord God of our fathers lives, the 
God of Abraham and the God of 
Isaac and the God of Jacob, we 
have heard these things and we saw 
him taken up into heaven. 

The Jews say to them: Did you 
come for this, to make a glad an- 
nouncement, or did you come that 
you might offer prayer to God ? 

They say: That we may offer 
prayer to God. 

The Jews say to them: To what 
purpose then is this silly talk 
which you have been nonsensically 
talking before all the people ? 

Phineas says, [as] also Addas, the 
teacher, and Angeus the Levite, to 
the chiefs of the synagogue and to 
the priests and Levites: If these 
words which we have spoken are 
a sin, lo, we are before you. Do 


141 


PARIS D. 

iti : We saw in Galilee that 

esus, whom you crucified, with 
his eleven disciples on the mount 
of Olives, teaching them and 
saying : Go into the whole world 
and proclaim the gospel, and he 
Win belicces and is baptized will 
be saved, but the unbeliever will 
be condemned. And having said 
these things he ascended to 
heaven, 


And both we, and many 
others of the five hundred there, 
saw him. 


And the chief priests and Jews, 
having heard these things, spoke to 
those three men : Give glory to the 
God of Israel], and repent of these, 
your falsehoods. 

These three answered : As lives 
the Lord God of our fathers, of 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we do 
not falsify but speak truly. 


142 


PARIS A. 
to us what seems good in your 
eyes. 

But they, taking [a book of] 
the Law, adjured them to nar- 
rate these accounts to no one any 
further. And they gave them to 
eat and drink and put them out 
of the city, having given them 


PILATES REPORT. 


[NOTE B. 


PARIS D. 


Then the high-priest adjured 
them, and giving them money 
sent them away to another place, 
that they should not proclaim 
the resurrection of the Lord in 
Jerusalem. 


also silver and three men to put 
them again into Galilee. And 
they departed.”® ) 





The foregoing not only comprises everything in Paris A 
and Paris D, which can reasonably be regarded as part of 
the original Acts of Pilate, but includes many of the additions. 
The remainder of these documents, as printed by Thilo,” can- 
not have formed part of the original composition. 





NOTE B. 


PILATE’S REPORT. 


AsInE from the Acts of Pilate which have been given in the 
preceding Note, a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius was 
fabricated, either as a support to the preceding document or 
as an independent fraud. Tertullian (see Note A, footnote 1) 





73 * And they gave them to eat and drink, and putting them out of the 
city, let them go, having given them also three men so as to take them 
safely [without any talking?] as far as Galilee.” — Monac. A, Thilo, 

. 626. 
t 7 A portion of the remainder is weak and objectless. A search 
through the country, prompted by Nicodemus, finds nothing of Jesus, 
but does find Joseph, who gives a lecture to the murderers of Jesus. 

Another portion is a narrative by two sons of that Simeon, who blessed 
Jesus when a child. They had died and been buried some time pre- 
viously. They were among those raised at the resurrection of Jesus. 
They narrate to the Jewish rulers the deeds of Jesus in the Underworld, 
of which the reader will find a brief abstract in Underworld Mission, 
pp. 161, 162; 3d. edit. pp. 155, 156. These omitted portions consti- 
tute about half of the whole document as printed by Thilo. 


LONGER LATIN FORM. 143 


§1.] 
refers to it. At present this letter appears in several forms, 
occasioned perhaps by the different wants of controversialists. 
The longer Latin form of the letter is herewith translated. 
I understand Thilo to mean that he takes it as given in his 
text from the Einsiedlen MS.,' and as given in his notes from 
the Orthodoxographa.? 


§ 1 Longer Latin Form. 


Codex Einsidlensis. 


PoNTIUS PILATE TO HIS SOVEREIGN 
CLAUDIUS,® GREETING. 

Lately it happened with my 
sanction that the Jews through 
envy punished themselves and 
their posterity by cruelly sen- 
tencing G person] concerning 
whom, when their fathers had a 
promise that their God would 
send to them from his holy 
Heaven fone] who should de- 
servedly be called their king, and 
had promised that he would send 
this king to the earth through a 
virgin.* When the God of the 
Hebrews during my procurator- 
ship had sent that king into 
Judea, and when the Hebrews 
had seen him give light to the 
blind, purify the lepers, cure 
paralytics, drive demons out of 
men, call to life even the dead, 
control the winds, walk with dry 
feet over waves of the sea, and 
do many other miraculous won- 
ders, and when many of the 
Jewish people believed him to be 


Monumenta Orthodoxographa. 


Lately it happened, of which 
thing I can bear testimony, that 
the Jews through envy destroyed 
themselves and all their poster- 
ity by cruelly sentencing [a per- 
son]. For when by the promise 
of oracles received by the au- 
thority of their ancestors they 
expected as follows, namely, that 
their God would through a young 
virgin send pone) who should 
justly be called their king, he 
sent this [person | into Judea dur- 
ing my presence there. He, as 
is known to all, restored sight to 
the blind, cleansed lepers, cured 
paralytics. They saw him also 
drive out demons and liberate 
those possessed by impure spirits. 
He also resuscitated from their 
sepulchres the dead. The storms 
of wind obeyed him ; he walked 
on the sea with dry feet. He 
did also very many other miira- 
cles so that he was commonly 
called among Jews and the com- 
mon people the Son of God. 





1 Thilo, p. 796 n. The letter, subjoined in this MS. to the Acts of 
Pilate, is given in Thilo, Cod. Apoc. pp. 796 — 800. 

2 Thilo states, p. cxxxiv, that he knows not the MS. origin of the 
Latin which he has given in notes on pp. 798-800, and which is here 


translated. 
letter. 


It is perhaps nearer than the Einsiedlen MS. to the original 


8 This was a portion of the fuller name Tiberius Claudius Cesar. 


# The sentence is imperfect in the Latin. 


In the corresponding pas- 


of the Orthodoxographa the expression is virginem juvenculam. 
Possibly this may be intended to mean an immature virgin. 


144 


Codex Einsidlensis. 


the Son of God, the chief priests 
and scribes, and Pharisees of the 
Jews experienced envy towards 
him, and seizing, delivered him 
to me as procurator, and stated to 
me falsely a variety of things 
concerning him, asserting that he 
was a magician and acted ® con- 
trary to their law. I, however, 
believed their charges,-and de- 
livered him after a scourging to 
their decision. They, however, 
crucified him on a wooden cross ® 
and burying him when dead 
placed guards, the soldiers of my 
Pretorium guarding his _ sep- 
ulchre and sealing it. 
third day he arose from the 
sepulchre. The wickedness of 
the Jews, however, flamed out to 
such a degree that they gave 
money to my soldiers, saying: 
State that’ his disciples stole his 
body by night. But my soldiers, 
after they had received the 
money, could not be silent as to 
the truth of what had occurred, 
but testified that he had risen 
from the sepulchre, and said that 
they had received money from 
the Jews. 

Therefore I suggest to the 
sovereign that no one spread a 
contrary falsehood and decide® to 
credit untruths of the Jews. 


PILATES REPORT. 


On the. 


[ NOTE B, 


Monumenta Orthodoxographa. 


The chief priests, however, 
moved by rivalry and envy, were 
opposed to him, and delivered 
him, captured, to me, charging 
him as a criminal with fictitious 
crimes : they called him a magi- 
cian, a renegade from, and trans- 
gressor of, their law, by which 
persuasions I, misled, credited 
their complaints and delivered 
him, scourged, to them that they 
should proceed against him as 
they deemed proper. But they 
thereupon crucified him and 
placed guards over the sepulchre 
in which he was_ deposited, 
among which guards also were 
some of my soldiers, who saw 
him on the third day rising from 
the dead. The wickedness of 
the Jews, however, flamed out 
the more hereupon, and they 
paid a large sum of money to © 
the soldiers as an inducement to 
affirm that his disciples had 
stolen the body by night. The 
soldiers accepted the money, but 
nevertheless affirmed and testi- 
fied publicly everywhere that 
they had seen visions of angels, 
and that that Jesus had truly 
risen from the dead. . 

I, however, have written these 
things to the end that no one 
may credit the triflings and false- 





5 For magnum read magum. 


6 The words in Italics, omitted in one. MS., were probably added dur- 


‘ing the rage for using arguments from the Old Testament. 


Compare in 


Judaism, p. 345, a remark of Middleton. 


7 Quia is used here in the sense of the Greek word 67. 


If not a 


translation it would indicate, that Latins who resided in Greek coun- 
tries, or Greeks who wrote Latin, had affixed this meaning to the 


word. 


an interpolation. 


late ‘‘ that no one spread a contrar 


untruths of the Jews.” 


8 For ewstimans read cestimet. The preceding words in Italics may be 
Otherwise we might treat e¢ as interpolated and trans- 
y falsehood Sand] deciding to credit 


§ 2.) °. SHORTER LATIN FORM. 145 


Codex Einsidlensis. Monumenta Orthodoxographa. 


I have directed to your mighti- hoods of the Jews if they give a 
ness |a record of | all things done different account of what has oc- 
touching Jesus in my Pretoriwm? curred. Farewell. 


§ 2. Shorter Latin Form. 


Pontius Pinatr, Procurator or JupEA, TO TIBERIUS Casar, 
os Emperor, 8. P. 


Concerning Jesus Christ, — on whom in my last communi- 
cations I made a plain declaration to you, that severe punish- 
ment was inflicted by desire of the people, I being unwilling 
and reluctant, — no previous age had or will have a man, by 
_ Hercules, so pious, so [morally] austere. But there arose a 

wonderful effort of the people itself, and a concurrence of the 
scribes and chiefs and elders, (although their prophets, who 
according to us would be called Sibyls, warned against it) to 
crucify this ambassador of truth, supernatural signs making 
their appearance while he was suspended [on the cross], such 
as threatened, in the opinion of philosophers, ruin to the 
whole world. His disciples flourish, not proving untrue in 
work and continence of life to their master; nay, being most 
beneficent in his name. Unless I had been in the utmost 
fear lest a sedition should arise of the people who were almost 
boiling over, perchance that man would still live for us. 
Although fidelity to your dignity, rather than my own will, 
prevented my opposing with all my strength the sale and suf- 


_. fering of just blood, void of any accusation, merely through 


the malignity of men [and] yet [to eventuate], as the Scrip- 
tures make plain, in their own destruction. Farewell. — V. 


Cal. April. 





9 The paragraph in Italics is probably a later addition. 

10 The letter in this form cannot be the one to which Tertullian (see 
Note A, footnote 1) refers. Thilo prints it in his Codex Apocryphus, 
pp. 801, 802. He mentions that it is nowhere found appended in 
manuscripts to the Acts of Pilate, or, to use his words, @ nemine, quod 
sciam, cum Nicodemi evangelio conjuncta est. The letters S. P. appended 
to the inscription are an abbreviation probably of Salutem Plurimam, 
** utmost prosperity.” 


146 ’ PILATE’'S REPORT. [NOTE B. 


§ 3. Greek Form. 


Report oF Pontius PinatTe, PRocuRATOR OF JUDEA, SENT TO 
TIBERIUS CHSAR, AT ROME. 


Pontius Pilate, administering the Eastern government, to 
Tiberius Ceesar, most powerful and sacred.” 


I have thought proper, filled [as I am] with much fear and 
trembling, most powerful king, to indicate by this, my own 
writing, to your Practical-piety, the 6 mv contingency [to 
nature] of this date as the event made it known. 

While I, O master, according to the command of thy Seren- 
ity, was administering this eparchy, (which is one of the eastern 
cities called Jerusalem, in which is situated the temple of the Jew- 
ish race) **® the whole multitude of the Jews being assembled, 
delivered to me a man named Jesus, bringing many and un- 
usual accusations against him, but they were not able by any 
statement to convict him. There was one party of them [who 
charged | ™ against him that he said the sabbath was not their 
true rest. 

That man performed many cures in addition to good 
works. He made the blind to see, purified lepers, raised the 
dead, healed paralytics who were totally unable to move, ex- 
cept that they retained speech and the articulation of their 
bones, and he gave them power to walk about and run, im- 
parting it by a mere word. He did another more powerful 
work, which was strange even for our gods [to perform]: he 
raised from the dead a certain Lazarus, dead since the fourth 
day, commanding by a word only the dead man (whose body 
was already destroyed by worms and vermin) to awake, and 
he commanded that foul-smelling body which was lying in the 
sepulchre to run, and this [dead man], like a bridegroom from 





11 The translation of the title follows Codex C, which is less bombas- 
tic than that adopted by Thilo. His text for the remainder will be found 
in his Codex Apoc., pp. 804-812. It is there followed (pp. 813-816) 
by a much later document entitled Ilapddoo1s Tliddrov, ‘* Surrender of 
Pilate,” which represents Tiberius and the senate as sitting in judgment 
on Pilate and having him put to death. 

12 See Tertullian’s remarks on this ‘‘ accident to the world” quoted in 
Judaism, p. 442. 

13 The passage in parenthesis is probably a later addition, 

14 This insertion seems necessary to the sense. 


§ 3.] GREEK FORM. 147 


his chamber, came out of the sepulchre filled with the most 
fragrant perfume. 

Also certain hopelessly insane who had their dwelling in 
the deserts eating flesh of their own limbs, fellow-livers with 
the reptiles and wild beasts, [these] he placed as inhabitants 
of cities in their own houses, and by a mere word, exhibited 
them in their sound mind and intelligent ; and others, in 
whom were a crowd of unclean spirits, he made to be men of 
repute, and driving out the demons who were in them into 
the sea, in a herd of swine, he choked them. 

Also by a mere word he rendered sound another man who 
had a withered hand, who with pain acquired his living, not 
even having the half of his body sound. 

Also a woman who had a flow of blood for a great length of 
time, so that because of it the joints of her bones were visible, 
and the body which she carried round had hardly a human 
appearance, but looked like alabaster, and as if it were a dead 
body because of her loss of blood, for all physicians proclaim- 
ing her hopeless, paid no attention to her, for there was no 
hope of preservation in her. Then as Jesus was passing, she 
receiving strength from his shadow, touched the hem of his 
garments, and in the same hour the strength of her body was 
restored, and she became sound as one who had had no dis- 
ease, and began to run at full speed to her own city Paneas. 

And these things were as narrated, but the Jews charged 
that Jesus did these things on the sabbath. But I know 
wonderful things done by him beyond what the gods, whom 
we recognize, perform. | 

Herod therefore, and Archelaus, and Philip, and Annas, and 
Caiaphas, with the whole people, delivered this man to me for 
examination, stirring up much tumult against me as regarded 
their accusations against him. 

At first scourging him, I found no fault in the matters 
which they charged against him. Afterwards I gave him 
again to them, when THEY” had crucified whom, a darkness 
occurred over the whole world, the full-orbed sun being hid- 
den and the firmament of darkness appearing in daytime [so 
that the stars were not visible],’° but nevertheless having its 





© Crucifixion was a Roman, not a Jewish form of punishment. The 
statement that the Jews crucified Jesus is one of those mistakes which 
would have crept into the Gospels had they been of later origin. 

16 The bracketed passage may be an interpolation. Codex C omits 
not. If it be genuine the translation should be, ‘‘so that [even] the 
stars were not visible,” 


148 PILATE’S REPORT. [NOTE B. 


far-shining brilliancy darkened as is not unknown to your 
Practical-piety, since in the whole world they lighted lamps 
from the sixth hour until early. And the moon being as 
blood did not disappear during the whole night, although she 
was full. And the whole world was shaken by unheard-of 
portents, and the whole creation was about to be swallowed 
up by the underworld ; likewise the veil of their temple was 
rent from above downwards as thunder and a great noise from 
heaven occurred so that the earth shook and trembled.”  ~- 


[Subsequent Addition.] © 


In the midst of the fright dead persons appeared rising up. As 
the Jews themselves, who had seen, stated: That we have seen 
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the twelve Patriarchs, those 
(who had previously died) after Moses ® (twenty-five hundred years 
ago) and many others. (And we saw Noah visibly in the body.) 
But the stars and Orion made lamentation on account of the Jews, 
because of their lawlessness. . 

And after the sabbath, about the third hour of the night, the sun 
became visible as it never before shone, and the whole heaven was 
bright. And as winter lightnings make their appearance, thus cer- 
tain men on high, of brilliant clothing and of inexpressible glory, 
appeared in the air, and an unnumbered multitude of angels, call- 
ing out: The crucified Christ has arisen, {being a god|.” And a 
voice was heard, powerful as thunder, saying: Glory in the highest 
to God and upon earth peace, among men good-will. Ascend from 
the underworld, you who have been enslaved in its subterranean 
regions. And at their cry all the mountains and hills were shaken, 
and the rocks were rent, and mighty chasms took place in the 
earth, so that the contents of the abyss were visible. And many 
bodies of the dead who had fallen asleep arose, to the number of 





16. The text is corrupted. It may have been, ‘‘ the moon though full, 
was not eclipsed,” or ** being full, an eclipse of the sun was impossible.” 

17 The ‘‘ addition’ must he of later date, since it implies a well-devel- 
oned belief in Christ’s mission to the underworld, and bears plain traces 
of discussions connected with that subject. The concluding paragraph 
may, or may not, have been the original termination. 

18 The reader will find in the Underworld Mission, § II., that a 
Gnostic teacher maintained the unwillingness of Jews in the underworld 
to follow Christ. In § III. ot the same work will be found that some 
restricted the benefits of his underworld mission to Jews and their mono- 
theistic predecessors. The contradiction in the text has perhaps been 
caused by efforts to include or omit followers of Moses. Its origin from _ 
two texts may be elucidated by printing as follows: eldouer . . . Tovs dw- 
dexa Ilarpidpxas, rods [mrporerehevrynkétas}] werd Mwoéa [pd dicxthowy 
mevraxociuw éra&y] kal érépouvs trodods. 

19 Cod. A omits the words in brackets. 


NOTE ¢.] CORRESPONDENCE. 149 


five hundred, and the whole multitude walked around and hymned 
God with a loud voice, saying: He who rose from the dead, the 
Lord our God, restored to life all of us dead, and plundering the 
underworld, destroyed it. 

The whole of that night, therefore, O Royal Master, the light did 
not cease, but many of the Jews died and were engulfed and swal- 
lowed up in the chasms on that night, so that their bodies were 
not visible. Those of the Jews I mean, O Master, had disappeared 
who spoke against Jesus [so that 7 seemed to see some vision, the mul- 
titudes of ancrent dead whom we have never seen]. One synagogue was 
left in Jerusalem, where all those synagogues which opposed Jesus 
were swallowed up. 

Being therefore beside myself with fear and seized with much 
trembling, determining that very hour to write the things which 
were done among them all, I sent them to your mightiness.” 





NOTE C. 
CORRESPONDENCE. 


OPENED BY KING ABGARUS WITH JESUS. 


THE following spurious correspondence is found in Eusebius 
(Zee. Hist. 1,13), who alleges that his Greek is translated from 
the original Syriac in the public archives at Edessa. It must 
belong to the close of the third or beginning of the fourth 
eat The translation here adopted is that of Lardner 

tered. 


Copy OF 
_A Lerrer written sy Apcarus THE ToParcH TO JESUS, 
and sent to him at Jerusalem by the Courier Ananias. 


‘Abgarus, Toparch of Edessa, to Jesus the good Saviour, 
who has appeared at Jerusalem, sendeth greeting. 





20 Subjoined to the letter is the following : ‘‘ When these documents 
arrived in Rome and were read, all were astounded that because of Pi- 
late’s wickedness the darkness and earthquake took place over the whole 
world. And Cesar being filled with anger, sending soldiers, commanded 
to bring Pilate as a prisoner.” 

Appended to this is the ‘‘ Surrender of Pilate,” mentioned in note 11. 


150 CORRESPONDENCE. [NOTE c. 


I have heard of thee and of thy cures, performed without 
herbs, or other medicines. For it is reported that thou 
makest the blind to see, and the lame to walk: that thou 
cleansest lepers, and castest out unclean spirits and demons, 
and healest those who are tormented with diseases of a long 
standing, and raisest the dead. 

Having heard of all these things concerning thee, I con- 
cluded in my mind one of these two things, — either that thou 
art God come down from heaven who doest these things, or 
else thou art the Son of God who performest them. Where- 
fore I now write unto thee, entreating thee to come to me, 
and to heal my distemper. Moreover, I hear that the Jews 
murmur against thee, and plot to do thee mischief. I have 
a city, small indeed, but neat, which may suffice for us both. 


ANSWER OF JESUS TO ABGARUS THE TOPARCH. 
(Through Ananias the Courier.) 


Abgarus, thou art happy, forasmuch as thou hast believed 
in me, though thou hast not seen me. For it is written con- 
cerning me, that they who have seen me should not believe 
in me, that they who have not seen me might believe and 
live.’ As for what thou hast written to me desiring me to 
come to thee, it is necessary that all those things, for which I 
am sent, should be fulfilled by me here: and that after ful- 
filling them, I should be received up to him that sent me. 
When therefore I shall be received up, 1 will send to thee 
some one of my disciples, that he may heal thy distemper, 
and give life to thee, and to those who are with thee. 





Subjoined to the foregoing correspondence in Eusebius is a 
narrative, taken also professedly from the public archives at 
Edessa, concerning cures performed by Thaddeus in that city. 
It will be found hereafter in Note F, being separated from 
the foregoing in order that the reader may, by the aid of such 
classification, distinguish more readily the fabrications of tes- 
timony concerning the Master from those which concerned 
mrad his followers. 





1 The reference must be to John’s Gospel, 20, 29, which at the assumed 
date of this letter had not yet been written. 


NOTE D. | LETTER OF LENTULUS. 151 


NOTE D. 
LETTER OF LENTULUS. 


Tue following letter is not quoted by any early Christian 
writer. The fact that it is attributed to a heathen implies 
that it is not of later date than the fourth century. Possibly 
it belongs to the third. Its origin and object may be seen by 
recurring to Ch. III. § 14. The text of its Latin copies or 
translations differ from each other. One of these, a transla- 
tion from the Persian, will be found in Fabricius, Cod. Apoc. 
Nov. Test. pp. 301, 301*, 302. He mentions another, substan- 
tially the same, but different in phraseology, as existing in 
the Orthodoxographa. It will be found in the Biblical Re- 
pository, Vol. 2, pp. 373 — 375, in an article by Professor E. 
Robinson, who has also given in footnotes the readings of dif- 
ferent manuscripts. The letter must have had but little cur- 
cency or it would have been quoted by some early writer. 

Of the two versions here subjoined, one is from Calmet’s 
Dictionary, made from De Dieu’s Latin version of a Persian 
copy,’ which was perhaps a modern translation from the 
Latin. Another, in the second column, is my own from the 
text of the Orthodoxographa as given by Robinson. 


[A LETTER ... WHICH WASSENT LENTULUS, PREFECT OF JERUSA- 
TO THE SENATE BY A certain LEM, TO THE SENATE AND ROMAN 
LENTULUS.?] PEOPLE, GREETING. 

There has a man appeared In the present age a highly 
here, who is still living, named endowed man has appeared who 
Jesus Christ, whose power is is yet with us, named Jesus 
extraordinary. He has the title Christ, who by Gentiles is styled 





1 In the sixteenth century Francis Xavier, during his missionary 
work in Asia, published a church history in Persian, in which the above- 
mentioned Persian copy of the letter from Lentulus is found. The sup- 
position is reasonably certain that he supervised a translation of it from 
the Latin. ‘‘ Xavier, at command of the Persian Emperor Acabar, com- 
posed, as it seems, this history in the Portuguese language, lingua Lusi- 
tanica, in Agra, the principal city of the whole kingdom ; and his 
teacher Abdel Lenarin Kasen, originally from Lahore, translated it into 
Persian.” — Walch, Bibliotheca Theolog. Vol. 3, p. 405. 

2 The heading is taken from the Jena MS. No, 2. 


152 LETTER OF 
given to him of the Great Pro- 
phet ; his disciples call him the 
Son of God. He RAISES THE 
DEAD, and HEALS all sorts of pis- 
EASES. 


He is a tall, well-proportioned 
man ; there is an air of serenity 
in his countenance, which at- 
tracts at once the love and rever- 
ence of those who see him. His 
hair is of the color of new wine 
from the roots to his ears, and 
from thence to the shoulders it 
is curled, and falls down to the 
lowest part of them. Upon the 
forehead it parts in two, after the 
manner of the Nazarenes. His 
forehead is flat and fair, his face 
without any defect, and adorned 
with a very graceful vermilion ; 
his air is majestic and agreeable. 
His nose and his mouth are very 
well proportioned, and his beard 
is thick and. forked, of the color 
of his hair; his eyes are gray 
and extremely lively ; in his re- 
proofs he is terrible, but in his 
exhortations and _ instructions 
amiable and courteous; there is 
something wonderfully charming 
in his face, with a mixture of 
gravity. He is never seen to 
laugh, but he has been observed 
to weep. He is very straight in 
stature ; his hands are large and 
spreading, and his arms very 
beautiful. He talks little, but 
with great gravity, and is the 
handsomest man in the world. 


LENTULUS. [NOTE D. 
the Prophet of Truth,? whom his 
disciples call the Son of God ; 
comet who AWAKENS THE DEAD 
and HEALS INFIRMITIES. 

He is a man of prominent 
stature, arresting attention, hav- 
ing a countenance which inspires 
reverence, whom those that re- 
gard him can both love and fear ; 
having curly and wavy hair, 
somewhat dark and glossy, float- 
ing on his shoulders, parted in 


the middle, according to Naza- 
rene custom ; having a smooth, 
serene forehead, a face without 
wrinkle or speck — which a mod- 
erate degree of color renders at- 


tractive—a faultless nose and 
mouth, a copious and auburn, 
beard, like his hair in color, not 
long but forked ; with clear and 
animated eyes. [He is] terrible 
in reproof, placid and lovable in 
his admonitions, genial without 


loss of gravity, who was. never 
seen to smile but often to weep. 
He is distinguished * in stature, 
having hands and limbs which 
it is a delight to look upon, se- 
date in speech, peculiarly mod- 
est, beautiful among the sons of 
men.® Farewell. 





8 Prophet of Truth, or of the Truth. This term occurs in the Clemen- 
tine Homilies 2, 5, 6, 9 ; 3, 11, as also the term True Prophet, 1, 19, 21; 


3, ll. 


# All copies save this read ‘‘erect.” See Biblical Repository, 2, p. 375, 


note 13. 
5 Ps. 45, 2. 


eye CONCERNING CHRIST. : 153 


NOTE E. 
INTERPOLATIONS OF JOSEPHUS. 


§ 1. Concerning Christ. 


‘THERE are three passages in Josephus which have been re- 
garded as interpolated, namely, Antig. 18, 3, 3; 18, 5, 2, 
20, 9,1. One of these, a passage concerning Jesus, is proba- 
bly a fraud by some Christian. Whether the same can be 
said of the other two is doubtful. The passage concerning 
Jesus stands between narratives of two events which Josephus 
classes together as calamities. 





* But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Je- 
rusalem, and did it with the sacred money. . Myriads. of 
the people got together, and made a clamor against him... 
He bid the Jews himself go away; but they, boldly casting 
reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which 
had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much 
greater blows than Pilate had commanded them. . . . And 
thus an end was put to this sedition. 


“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be law- 
ful to call him a man ; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a 
teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew 
over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He 
was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the prin- 
cipal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that 
loved him at the first did not forsake him ; for he appeared to them 
alive again the third day ; as the divine prophets had foretold these 
and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And 
tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this 

y-] 


“ About the same time also another sad calamity put the 
Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened 
about the temple of Isis that was at Rome.” ? 





1 Antiq. 18, 3, 2-1; Whiston's trans. This other calamity of which 
Josephus treats occurred in A. D. 19 at Rome (see Judaism, p. 188) about 
eleven years before Jesus entered on his ministry. 


154 INTERPOLATIONS ‘OF JOSEPHUS. [NOTE E. 


§ 2. Concerning John the Baptist. 


The passage in the works of Josephus concerning John the 
Baptist is probably due to some disciple of John, or to some 
adherent of the popular party, rather than to any Christian. 
Even if correct, it does not, at first sight, accord with the Gospel 
narrative,’ nor does it refer in any way to Christ or Christian- 
ity. Whether it be an intentional interpolation or a mar- 
ginal comment innocently copied into the text may admit 
question. 





“ Aretas, the king of Arabia Petreea, and Herod had a quar- 
rel. . . . Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of 
Aretas. . . . However, he fell in love with Herodias. .. . 
Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him 
and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their 
liraits at the country of Gemalitis. So they raised armies on 
both sides. . . . All Herod’s army was destroyed. ... Herod 
wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at 
the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war 
upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him 
in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head[?]. This was 
the charge [?] that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.® 





2 According to Matthew (14, 3) and Mark (6, 17) the cause of John’s 
imprisonment was his statement that Herod ought not to marry his 
brother's wife. According to Luke (3, 19, 20) it was for this and other 
causes. That John, who spoke with equal boldness of prince and peo- 
ple, should be arrested by Herod is comprehensible enough. If, how- 
ever, Herod, as Mark tells us (6, 20) ‘‘ feared John . . . and did many 
things as he told. him and listened to him readily,” Herod must for a 
time have striven to gain John over to his side, that he might use his in- 
fluence with the people. Failing in this, the request by a daughter of 
Herodias, for the head of John, as also the king’s previous oath, may 
have been preconcerted by himself to lessen the odium of what he in-. 
tended doing, or by his wife and the aristocracy as a means of pushing 
him to a decision at which he hesitated. 

The date of John’s death must have been in A. D. 31, while the aris- 
tocracy at Rome (see Judaism, pp. 522-531) were preparing for the re- 
bellion, which broke out in October. In the spring of A. D. 32, when 
this rebellion had been suppressed, Pilate and Herod (Luke 28, 12) were 
reconciled, which not improbably means that Herod had previously sym- 
pathized with the aristocracy and Pilate with Tiberius, from whom he 
held his office. 

8 Josephus repeatedly falsifies history with the object of favoring the 
- Roman and Jewish aristocracy. The above is doubtless one of his fic- 
tions. See remarks near the close of the section. 


§ 2.] CONCERNING JOHN THE BAPTIST. 155 


_ “[Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s 
army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what 
he did against John, that was called the Baptist, for Herod slew 
him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise 
virtue, both as regarded justice towards one another, and practical 
recognition towards God, and so to come to baptism ; for that the 
washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use 
of it, not in order to the putting away, [or the remission] of some 
sins [only,} but for the purification of the body ; supposing still 
that the soul was iorenghly purified beforehand by righteousness. 
Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were 
greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared 
est the great influence John had over the people might put it into 
his power and inclination to raise rebellion, (for they seemed ready 
to do anything he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him 
to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring 
himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him re- 
pent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly, he was sent a 

risoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I 

efore mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had 
an opinion, that the destruction of this army was sent as a punish- 
ment on Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him. | 


“So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having 
with him two legions of armed men. . . . Leading his army 
through Judea, the principal men met him, and desired that 
he would not thus march through their land: for that the 
laws of their country would not permit them to overlook those 
images which were brought into it. . . . Whereupon he or- 
dered the army to march along the great plain, while he him- 
self, with Herod the tetrarch, and his friends, went up to 
Jerusalem to offer sacrifice to God, an ancient festival of the 
Jews being then just approaching ; and when he had been 
there, and been honorably entertained by the multitude of 
the Jews, he made a stay there for three days, within which 
time he deprived Jonathan of the high-priesthood, and gave it 
to his brother Theophilus. But when, on the fourth day, let- 
ters came to him, which informed him of the death of Tibe- 
rius, he obliged the multitude to take an oath of fidelity to 
Caius ; he also recalled his army, and made them every one go 
home, and take their winter-quarters there, since, upon the 
devolution of the empire upon Caius, he had not the like au- 
thority of making the war which he had before.” 4 





4 Josephus, Antig. 18, 5, 1-3; Whiston’s trans. altered. The chro- 
nology of the passage is somewhat as follows : Herod’s substitution of 


156 INTERPOLATIONS. OF JOSEPHUS, [NOTE E, 


In the foregoing an omission of the passage concerning 
John would cause no break in the connection between what 
precedes and follows it. Some may think that the connection 
would thus become even closer. 

It is plain, moreover, that Josephus wishes us to regard 
Tiberius as having espoused Herod’s cause, and to understand 
Vitellius as being very deferential to the aristocracy. We 
can feel reasonably certain that if Josephus for any cause had 
wished to commend John, he would not have selected this 
connection for so doing. John’s designation for the aristoc- 
racy, “brood of vipers” (Matt. 3, 7), and the whole tone of 
his teaching, were not calculated to inspire reverence for those 
in high places. : 

The habitual untruthfulness of Josephus (concerning which 
see Judaism, pp. 553-560) renders it a fair question whether 
the expedition of Vitellius ® had the slightest connection with 
Aretas. Vitellius may before moving have received orders 
from Tiberius, who felt the approach of death, that he should 
guard against any rebellion by the Jewish aristocracy on the 
accession of Caligula. His troops may have been intended to 
intercept communication between the aristocracy at Jerusalem 
and senatorial sympathizers on the sea-coast. The need of 
this will appear from a study of events two years after- 
wards.® 


§ 3. Concerning James. 


The extant interpolation concerning James may, or may 
not, have originated in an honest marginal comment copied 
subsequently through ignorance into the text. 





“The king [Agrippa] deprived Joseph of the high-priest- 
hood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son 





Herodias for his former wife cannot have been later than A. p. 31, if so 
late. The advent of Vitellius into Syria cannot have been earlier than 
A. D. 35, seeing that he was consul in A. p. 34. The death of Tiberius 
occurred March 16, A. D. 37. 

© Vitellius was a member of the popular party, and, equally with other 
of its prominent men, has been grossly abused and misrepresented by 
Tacitus. The following, forced probably from that writer by public opin- 
ion in provinces more intelligent than Rome, should be well weighed. 
‘In governing the provinces he acted with pristine [a patrician term 
for commendable] uprightness.” — Tacitus, -An. 6, 32. 

§ See Judaism, pp. 96 - 107. 


§ 3.) ° CONCERNING JAMES. 157 


of Ananus, who was himself called Ananus. .. . But this 
younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the 
high-priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very in- 
solent : he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very 
rigid in judging offenders above all the rest of the Jews, as we 
have already observed. When, therefore, Ananus was of this 
disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to 
exercise his authority|. Festus was now dead, and Albinus 
was but upon the road; so he asSEMBLED THE SANHEDRIM of 
Judges. 


“*[ And brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called 
CHRIST, whose name was JAMES, and some others. And when he 
had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he 
delivered them to be stoned. | 


“ But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citi- 
zens, and such as were most uneasy at the breach of the 
laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the 
king, [Agrippa,| desiring him to send to Ananus that he 
should act so no more, for that what he had already done was 
not to be justified: nay, some of them went also to meet 
Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and in- 
formed him, that it was not lawful for Ananus to ASSEMBLE A 
SANHEDRIM without his consent.” * 





The foregoing interpolation may be a correct piece of his- 
tory which some one has noted in the margin of Josephus. It 
can have had no theological bearing, and presented therefore no 
motive for FRAUDULENT insertion. 

Besides the above there would seem in Origen’s time to 
have been in some copy, or copies, of Josephus a somewhat 
different statement concerning James, which, instead of per- 
taining merely to fact, included opinions.® 





7 Josephus, Antiq. 20, 9, 1; Whiston’s trans. - 

8 «* Josephus ... says: ‘These things befell the Jews in vindication’ 
of James called the Just, who was the brother of Jesus called the Christ : 
forasmuch as they killed him who was a most righteous man.’.. . 
With how much more reason might he have said that this had happened 
for the sake of Jesus who was the Christ.” — Origen, cont. Cels. 1, 473. 
Opp. ed. Lommatzsch, 18, p. 87 ; ed. de la Rue, 1, p. 363 A; Lardner’s 
rans. 

-* Titus destroyed Jerusalem, according, indeed, to Josephus, ‘ because 
of James the Just, the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ,’ but in 


158 EDESSENE ARCHIVES. [NoTE F. 


NOTE F. 
EDESSENE ARCHIVES OR PSEUDO-THADDEUS. 


In Eusebius is our earliest mention of the above document, 
which he gives in a Greek translation, with the following pref- 
atory remark :— ; 3 

“To these epistles? . . . are subjoined the following things, 
in the Syriac language. 

“« After Jesus had been taken up, Judas, called also 
Thomas, sent the apostLE Thaddeus,” one of the seventy ; 
who, when he came to Edessa, took up his abode with Tobias, 
son of Tobias. When his arrival was rumored about, and he 
had begun to be known by the miracles which he had wrought, 
it was told to Abgarus, that an APOSTLE was sent to him by 
Jesus, according to his promise. Thaddeus therefore by the 





truth because of Jesus Christ the Son of God.” — Origen, cont. Cels. 2, 
13; Opp. ed. Lommatzsch, 18, p. 161; ed. de la Rue, 1, p. 399 D. 

‘* Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Jewish Antiquities in twenty 
books, being desirous to assign the cause why that people suffered such 
things, so that even their temple was demolished to the foundation, says 
that ‘those things had happened because of the anger of God against 
them, for what they had done to James the brother of Jesus called the 
Christ.’ ”” — Origen, Comment. in Mutt. Tom. 10, 17 (Opp. ed. Lom- 
matzsch, 3, p. 46 ; ed. de la Rue, 3, p. 463 C) ; Larduner’s trans. 

1 Epistles of Abgarus and Jesus, already given in Note C. 

2 In the enumeration of the Apostles by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 
we find that after mention of James, the son of Alpheus, Luke (6, 15, 
16) mentions ‘‘ Judas, the brother of James” ; Mark (3, 18) mentions 
‘Thaddeus ”” ; and Matthew (10, 3) mentions ‘‘ Lebbeus, whose sur- 
name was Thaddeus.” Probably the author of the present document 
meant that Judas, otherwise called Thaddeus, the apostle, had gone to 
Edessa. Some one who noticed that in Matthew and Mark there is no 
mention of any other Judas than the traitor, or some one who used 
Luke’s gospel and found no such name as Thaddeus appended to the 
brother of James, undertook to remedy the difficulty by making Thad- 
deus one of the seventy, and a different person from Judas. This may 
have caused him to be sometimes called an apostle and sometimes one of 
the seventy. . 

Eusebius in his introductory remarks, prior to the correspondence of 
Abgarus with Jesus, calls Thomas ‘‘one of the twelve Apostles,” and 
Thaddeus, ‘‘in the number of the seventy.” He had probably noticed 
the confusion, and intended his remarks as the suggestion of an explana- 
tion, , 


NOTE F.] EDESSENE ARCHIVES. 159 


power of God healed all sorts of maladies, so that all won- 
dered. 

_“*But when Abgarus heard of the great and wonderful works 
which he did, and how he healed men in the name and by the 
power of Jesus Christ, he was induced to suspect.[év dzovota. 
yéyovev| that he was the person about whom Jesus had written 
to him, saying, “ When I am taken up, I will send to thee some 
one of my disciples, who shall heal thy distemper.” Sending 
therefore for Tobias, at whose house he was, he said to him: 
“T hear that a man, endowed with great power, and come 
from Jerusalem, is at thy house, and that he works many 
cures in the name of Jesus.” To which Tobias answered, 
“Yes, sir; there is a stranger with me, who performs many 
miracles.” Abgarus then said: “Bring him hither to me.” 
Tobias, coming to Thaddeus, said to him: “The toparch 
Abgarus has bid me bring thee to him that thou mayest heal 
his distemper.” Whereupon Thaddeus said: “I go; forlam 
_ sent to him by [an impelling] power.” 

«The next day, early in the morning, Tobias taking Thad- 
deus came to Abgarus. As he came in, the nobles being 
present, there appeared to Abgarus somewhat very extraor- 
dinary in the countenance of the apostte Tliddeus, which 
_when Abgarus saw, he did reverence to Thaddeus ; which ap- 
peared strange to all present, for they did not see that sight 
_ which appeared to Abgarus only. He then asked Thaddeus: 

_“Are you indeed the disciple of Jesus the son or Gop, who 
once said to me: I will send to thee some one of my disciples 
who shall heal thy distemper, and give life to all with thee?” 
Thaddeus answered : “ Forasmuch as thou hast great faith in 
the Lord Jesus, therefore am I sent unto thee: and if thou 
shalt increase in faith in him, all the desires of thy heart will 
be fulfilled according to thy faith.” 

“¢Then Abgarus said to him: “TI haveso believed in him, 
that I would go with an army to extirpate the Jews who cru- 
cified him, if I were not apprehensive of the Roman power.” 
Then Thaddeus said : “ Our Lord [and God] * Jesus Christ has 
fulfilled the will of his Father: and, having fulfilled it, he has 
been taken up to his Father.” Abgarus thea said: “I have 





8 The words and God are omitted by the three manuscripts mentioned 
in the next note, and are deemed spurious by the editors Valesius and 
Heinichen, though in following the copy which they had adopted they 
have kept them in their text. 


160 EDESSENE ARCHIVES. [NOTE. F. 


believed in him and in his Father.” And thereupon said 
Thaddeus: ‘‘ Therefore I put my hand upon thee in the name 
of the Lord Jesus.” And, upon his so doing, Abgarus was 
healed of his distemper. And Abgarus wondered, that as it 
had been reported concerning Jesus, so it had been done by 
his disciple [and apostle|* Thaddeus ; insomuch as he had 
healed him without herbs, or other medicines. Nor did he 
heal him alone, but also Abdus, son of Abdus, who had the 
gout. For he came to him, and fell down upon his knees 
before him, and by the laying on of his hands with prayer he 
was healed. The same [apostte|® healed many other citizens 
of the same place, and wrought many and great miracles as he 
preached the word. 

““* After which Abgarus-spoke to this purpose: “ Thou 
Thaddeus doest things by the power of God, and we admire 
thee. But I beseech thee to inform me about the coming of 
Jesus, how it was, and- of his power, and by what power he 
did all those things which we have heard of.” To which 
Thaddeus answered : ‘‘ Now I forbear, though I am sent. to 
preach the word ; but to-morrow gather together all the citi- 
zens, and then in their hearing I will preach. the word, and 
sow in them the word of life, and will inform them of the 
coming of Christ, how it was, and concerning his mission, and 
for what cause he was sent by the Father, and concerning the 
power of his works, and the mysteries which he spoke in the 
world, and by what power he did these things, and concerning 
his new doctrine, and about the meanness and despicableness 
of his outward appearance,° and how he humbled himself, (and 
died, and lessened his deity; how many things also he suf- 
fered from the Jews, and how he was crucified,)’ and descended ~ 
into the underworld, and rent asunder the inclosure never 
before rent, and arose, and raised up the dead who had been 
buried many ages ; and how he descended alone, but ascended 
to his Father with a great multitude; and how he is set 
down on the right hand of the Father with glory in the 
heavens ; and how he will come again with glory and power 
to judge the living and the dead.” 

““* Abgarus therefore issued out orders that all the citizens 





* The Mazarine, Medicean, and Fuketian MSS. omit the words in 
brackets. 

5 Omitted by the three MSS. mentioned in the preceding note. 

6 See Ch. III. § 14. 

7 The parenthesis must include two or more varying texts. 





NOTE G.] CORRESPONDENCE OF § 


Sse ee 


should come together early the next morning, to hear the 
preaching of Thaddeus. And after that he commanded that 
gold and silver should be given to him, but he did not receive 
it, saying : “ When we have left what is our own, how should - 
we receive those things which belong to others?” 

“ «This was done in the four hundred and thirtieth year.’ ” ® 





NOTE G. 


CORRESPONDENCE OPENED BY SENECA WITH PAUL. 


Fourteen letters, professedly of Seneca and Paul, have 
come down to us, —eight by the former and six by the lat- 
ter, — which will be found in editions of Seneca and of the 
Apocrypha,’ They were extant before the close of the fourth 
century, for Jerome alludes to them.? They are part of the 





' 8 Busebius, Lec. Hist. 1,13 ; Lardner’s trans. altered. His translation 
is in his Works, 6, 598-600. Eusebius says that the above narrative 
which he gives in Greek is translated from the Syriac. Heinichen’s edi- 
tion gives other various-readings than those heretofore cited. 

The four hundred and thirtieth Syrian year corresponds with the fif- 
teenth of Tiberius ; see note of Valesius on this passage in his edition of 
Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., Appendix, pp. 22, 23, copied in Heinichen’s edition, 
Vol. 1, PP. 88, 89. 7 

+ See Seneca, Opp. Philos. 4, pp. 474-479, edit. Lemaire ; Fabricius, 
Cod. Apoc. Nov. Test. 1, pp. 892-904 (where the last letter is misnum- ° 
bered:13). Jones in his work on the Canon, Vol. 2, pp. 45-53, gives 
the text of Fabricius, which differs from that of Lemaire. He accom: 
panies it with an English translation by himself, which has been copied 
with a few verbal oversights into Hone’s Apocryphal New Testament, 
Pp. 84-88. This translation of Jones is, with some alterations, the one 

opted above. 

2 “Lucius Annzus Seneca, . . . whom I would not place in the cata- 
logue of holy men unless prompted by those Epistles, read by most per- 
sons, of Paul to Seneca; and Seneca to Paul, in which . . . he says that 
he wishes he occupied. the same place among his countrymen as Paul 
oo Jerome, de Vir. Illust. 12 ; Opp. 2, col. 849 — 851 ; 
edit. Vallars. 

Augustine also remarks: ‘‘Seneca, who lived in apostolic times, 
some of whose letters to the apostle Paul are in circulation, truly says : 
He who hates the wicked hates all men.” — Epist. 54 (edit. Benedictin. 
1,53) ad Macedonium. 


162 CORRESPONDENCE OF SENECA AND PAUL. [NoTE @. 


conflict between Christians and heathens, and were intended 
as evidence of Seneca’s respect for Paul. When heathenism 
had lost political power, Paul's authority outweighed that of 
Seneca. A consequence of this has been that in the title of 
the correspondence, as now extant, Paul’s name precedes that. 
of Seneca. ) 





1. Annaz&us Seneca to Paut Greeting. I suppose, Paul, that 
you have been informed of that conversation, which passed 
yesterday between me and my Lucilius, concerning hypocrisy 
and other subjects; for there were some of your disciples in 
company with us; for when we were retired into the Sallus- 
tian gardens, through which they were also passing, and 
would have gone another way, by our persuasion they joined 
company with us. I desire you to believe, that we much 
wish for your conversation. We were much delighted with 
your book of many Epistles, — which you addressed to some 
states and chief towns of provinces, — containingwonderful 
instructions for moral conduct : such sentiments, as I suppose 
you were not the author of, but only the instrument of con- 
veying, though sometimes both the author and the instru- 
ment. For such is the sublimity of those doctrines, and 
their grandeur, that I suppose the age of a man is scarce suffi- 
cient to be instructed and perfected in the knowledge of them. 
I wish your welfare, my brother. Farewell. 

2. Pau to SENE@A Greeting. I received your letter yesterday with 
pleasure ; to which I could immediately have written an answer, had the 
young man been at home, whom | intended to have sent to you; for you 
know when, and by whom, at what seasons, and to whom, I must de- 
liver everything which I send. I desire, therefore, you would not 
charge me with negligence, if I wait for a proper person. I reckon my- 
self very happy in having the judgment of so valuable a person, that you 
are delighted with my Epistles : for you weuld not be esteemed a censor, 
a philosopher, or be the tutor of so great a prince, and a master of every- 
thing, if you were not sincere. I wish you a lasting prosperity. 

3. Annzus Seneca to Paut Greeting. I have completed 
some volumes, and divided them into their proper parts. I 
am determined to read them to Cesar, and if any favorable 
opportunity happens, you also shall be present, when they are 
read. But if that cannot be, I will appoint and give you no- 
tice of a day, when we will together read over the perform- 
ance. I had determined, if I could with safety, first to have 
your opinion of it, before I published it to Cesar, that you 
might be convinced of my affection to you. Farewell, dear- 
est Paul. : 


NOTE G.] CORRESPONDENCE OF SENECA AND PAUL. 163 


4. Paut to SENECA Greeting. As often as I read your letters I im- 
agine you present with me ; nor indeed di 1 think any other than that 
you are always withus. As soon therefore as you come we shall mu- 
tually see each other nearer. I wish you all prosperity. 


5. Annzus Seneca to Paun Greeting. We are very much 
concerned at your too long absence from us. What is it, or 
what affairs are they which obstruct your coming? If you 
fear the anger of Cesar, because you have abandoned your 
former religion, and made proselytes also of others, you have 
this to plead, that your acting thus proceeded not from in- 
constancy, but judgment. Farewell. 

6. PAut to SENECA and LuctILius Greeting. Concerning those things, 
about which ye wrote to me, it isnot proper for me to mention anything 
in writing with pen and ink : the one of which leaves marks, and the 
other evidently declares things. Especially since I know that there are 
near you, as well as me, those who will understand my meaning. Def- 
erence is to be paid to all men, and so much the more, as they are more 
likely to take occasions of quarrelling. And if we show a submissive 
temper we shall overcome effectually in all points, if they be such as can 
repent of their doings. Farewell. 


7. Annmus Seneca to Paut Greeting. I profess myself 
extremely pleased with the reading your letter to the Gala- 
tians, Corinthians, and people of Achaia. For the Holy Spirit 
has in them by you delivered those sentiments which are very 
lofty, sublime, deserving of all respect, and beyond your own 
invention. I could wish, therefore, that when you are writ- 
ing things so extraordinary, there might not be wanting an 
elegancy of speech agreeable to their majesty. And I must 
own, my brother, — that I may not at once dishonestly conceal 
anything from you, and be unfaithful to my own conscience, — 
that the emperor is extremely pleased with the sentiments of 
your Epistles. For when he heard the beginning of them 
read, he declared, That he was surprised to find such no- 
tions in a person who had not had a regular education. To 
which I replied, That the gods sometimes speak by the ‘mouth 
of babes’ [ Ps. 8, 2; Matt. 11, 25], and gave him an instance 
of this in a rustic, named Vatienus, who, when he was in the 
country of Reate, had two men appear to him, called Castor 
and Pollux, and received a revelation from the gods. Fare- 
well. 

8. Pau to SENECA Greeting. Although I know the emperor is both 
an admirer and favorer of our matters, yet give me leave to advise you 


against your suffering any injury [by showing any favor to us]. I think 
indeed you ventured upon a very dangerous attempt, when you would 


164 CORRESPONDENCE OF SENECA AND PAUL. [NOTE @. 


declare [to the emperor] that which is so very contrary to his religion, 
and way of worship; seeing he is a worshipper of the heathen gods. I 
know not what you had particularly in view, when you told him of. this ; 
but I suppose you did it out of a too great respect for me. But I desire 
that for the future you would not do so; for you had need be careful, 
lest by showing your affection to me, you should offend your master : 
His anger indeed will do us no harm, if he continue a heathen ; nor will 
his not being angry be of any service to us: And if the empress act 
worthy of her character, she will not be angry; but if she act as a 
woman, she will be affronted. Farewell. 


9. Annus SENECA to PauL Greeting. I know that you are 
less disturbed on your account by my letter, acquainting you 
that [had given the emperor your Epistles, than by the con- 
dition of things which so powerfully diverts men’s minds from 
good manners and practices, {as to occasion] that I at present 
should not be esteemed because among many documents [ 
deem this [of yours] the most noteworthy. Let us, therefore, 
begin afresh ; and if anything heretofore has been imprudently 
acted, do you forgive. I have sent you a book de copia verbo- 
rum. Farewell, dearest Paul. , 

10. Pau to SENEOA Greeting. As often as I write to you, and place 
my name before yours, I do a thing both disagreeable to myself and con- 
trary to our religion ; for 1 ought, as I have often declared, to become all 
things to all men, and to have that regard to your quality, which the 
Roman law has honored all senators with; namely, to put my name 
last in. the [inscription of the] Epistle, that I may not at length with 
uneasiness and shame be obliged to do that which it was always m 
inclination to do. Farewell, most respected master. Dated the fift 
of the calends of July, in the fourth consulship of Nero and Messala 
[A. D. 58]. fos 

11.8 Annzus Seneca to Paun Greeting. All happiness to 
you, my dearest Paul. If a person so great, so every way 
agreeable as you are, become not only a common, but most 
intimate friend to me, how happy will be the case of Seneca! 
You, therefore, who are so eminent, and so far exalted above 
all, even the greatest, do not think yourself unfit to be 
first named in the inscription of an Epistle; lest I should 
suspect you intend not so much to try me as to banter me; 
for you know yourself to be a Roman citizen. For I could 
wish to hold among my people the position which you hold 
among yours. Farewell, dearest Paul. Dated the tenth of 
the calends of April, in the consulship of Aprianus [| Aproni- 
anus| and Capito [a. p. 59]. 3 





3 No. 12 in Le Maire. 


NOTE G.] CORRESPONDENCE OF SENECA AND PAUL. 165 


_ 12.4 Annamus Senzca to Paun Greeting. All happiness to 
you, my dearest Paul. Do you think that I am not saddened 
and grieved at the punishments inflicted on your innocent 
[sect ?] and that all the people should suppose you [Chris- 
tians] so criminal, and imagine all the misfortunes befalling 
the city, to be caused by you? But let us bear the charge 
with a patient temper, appealing [for our innocence] to the 
court [above], which is the only one our hard fortune will 
allow us to address, till at length our misfortunes shall end 
in unalterable happiness. Former ages have produced [ty- 
rants] Alexander the son of Philip, and Dionysius; ours also 
has produced Caius Czesar ; whose inclinations were their only’ 
laws. As to the frequent burnings of the city of Rome, the 
cause is manifest ; and if a person in my mean circumstances 
might be allowed to speak, and one might declare these dark 
things without danger, every one should see the whole of the 
matter. The Christians and Jews are indeed commonly pun- 
ished for the crime of burning the city ; but that impious 
miscreant, who delights in murders and butcheries, and dis- 
guises his villanies with lies, is appointed to, or reserved till, 
his proper time ; and as the life of every excellent person is 
now sacrificed instead of that one person [who is the author of 
the mischief |, so this one shall be sacrificed for many, and he 
shall be devoted to be burnt with fire instead of all. One 
. hundred and thirty-two houses and four whole squares [or 
islands] were burnt down in six days: the seventh put an end 
to the burning. I wish you all happiness. Dated fifth of the 
calends of April, in the consulship of Frigius [Frugi] and Bas- 
sus [a. D. 64].5 

13. Annaus Seneca to Pau Greeting. All happiness to 
you, my dearest Paul. You have written many volumes in 
an allegorical and mystical style, and, therefore, such mighty 
matters and business, being committed to you, require not to 
be set off with any rhetorical flourishes of speech, but only 
with some proper elegance. I remember you often say, that 
many by affecting such a style do injury to their subjects, 
and lose the force of the matters they treat of. But in this I 
desire you to regard me, namely, to have respect to true 
Latin, and to choose just words, that so you may the better 





# No. 11 in Le Maire. 
5 In Le Maire the Consuls mentioned at the end of Letter 11, and 
also of Letter 12, are Apronius and Capito. 


166 CORRESPONDENCE OF SENECA AND PAUL. [NOTE @. 


manage the noble trust, which is reposed in you. Farewell. 
Dated fifth of the nones of July, Leo and Savinus consuls. 


14, PAuL to SENECA Greeting. Your serious consideration is requited 
with those discoveries, which the Divine Being has granted but to few. 
Iam thereby assured thiat I sow the most strong seed in a fertile soil, 
not anything material, which is subject to corruption, but the durable 
word of God, which shall increase and bring forth fruit to eternity. That 
which by your wisdom you have attained to, shall abide without decay 
forever. Believe that you ought to avoid the superstitions of Jews and 
Gentiles. ‘The things which you have in some measure arrived to, pru- 
dently make known to the emperor, his family, and to faithful friends ; 
and though your sentiments will seem disagreeable, and not be compre- 
hended by them, seeing most of them will not regard your discourses, 
yet the Word of God, once infused into them, will at length make them 
become new men, aspiring towards God. Farewell, Seneca, who art most 
dear tous. Dated on the calends of August, in the consulship of Leo 
and Savinus.® 





At a date when some writers maintained the genuineness 
of these letters, extracts were made from Paul’s writings and 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, which he was supposed to have 
written, and were placed parallel with similar extracts from 
Seneca. They will be found in Le Maire’s Seneca, Opp. Philos. 
4, pp. 465-467. The similarity is due to the fact that not 
only Paul and the Writer to the Hebrews, but Seneca, like 
his brother Stoics, copied more or less from Judaism. 

The two extra letters of Seneca, over and above the number 
written by Paul, are due probably to the substitution by later 
writers than the original forger, of one letter for a different 
one. The later substitutes and the original have been pre- 
served and copied. 





6 The consuls for A.D. 65 were A. Licinius Nerva Silianus and M. 
Vestinus Atticus. Those for A.D. 66 were C. Lucius Telesinus and 
C. Suetonius Paullinus. The forger of the Epistles must have intended 
to name the consuls for one or the other of these years, since the execu- 
tion of Paul could not have been placed at any later date. Either some 
corruption of the text has taken place, or the forger made some blunder. 


NOTE H.] + LETTER OF MARCUS ANTONINUS. 167 


NOTE H. 
LETTER OF MARCUS ANTONINUS. 


' Durine a war waged by Marcus Antoninus in Germany 
(a. D. 174) he and his army were almost famished with thirst, 
being cut off doubtless from water by their enemies. An 
opportune shower relieved them. The Antonine-column at- 
tributes this to Jupiter Pluvius. Christians attributed it to 
the prayers of a Christian legion ; some Heathens to an Egyp- 
tian Astrologer named Arnuphis, others to a Chaldean named 
Julian.! , 

Christians invented a letter, professedly by the emperor, 
indorsing their account. This letter must have existed by 
the beginning of the third century, for Tertullian alludes 
to it.2 A copy of it has come down to us, appended by 
some scribe to Justin’s first Apology. In Maran’s edition 
of Justin, it will be found on pp. 85 — 87, and in Otto’s edition, 
Vol. 1, pp. 276-280. Lardner’s translation, the one here 
given, will be found in his Works, Vol. 7, pp. 184,185. He 
accompanies it with various citations and arguments from dif- 
ferent writers. His heading of the letter includes the titles 
“ Augustus ” and “high-priest,” omitted by Maran’s text and 
Otto’s. 


The Emperor Cesar, Marcus Auretius Antoninus [Augus- 
tus], Germanicus, Parthicus, Sarmaticus [high-priest], to the 
Prop.e of Rome, and to the Sacred Senate, Greeting. 

I gave you an account of the greatness of the enterprise 
which I had undertaken, and what great difficulties came 
upon me in Germany ; how I was surrounded and besieged in 
the midst of it, and afflicted with heat and weariness: at 
which time I was overtaken at Carnutum by seventy-four 
regiments, who were not more than nine miles off from us. 
Now when the enemy was come very near us, our spies gave 
us notice of it: and Pompeianus, my general, informed me also 





1 Dio Cass. 71, 8 ; Suidas, Lex., articles Arnuphis and Julian. 

2 In his Apology (c. 5) Tertullian refers to the letter of Marcus An- 
toninus as attesting that the shower was, perhaps, obtained by the prayers 
of Christian soldiers. 


168 \LETTER OF MARCUS ANTONINUS. _. [NOTE’H. 


of what I knew before. In our army we had only the first, 
the tenth, the double, and the Fretensian legions, to contend 
with an innumerable company of barbarians. When I had 
computed my own numbers with those of the enemy, I ad- 
dressed our gods in prayer; but not being regarded by them, 
and considering the distress we were in, I called for those 
whom we call Christians ; and upon examination I found that. 
they were a great multitude, at which 1 was much displeased, 
though I should not have been so; for afterwards I under- 
stood how powerful they are. For which reason they began, 
not by- preparing their darts, or other weapons, or their trum- 
pets, inasmuch as such things are disagreeable to them on ac- 
count of God, whom they bear in their consciences : for it is 
reasonable to believe that they, whom we call atheists, have 
God within them for a bulwark. As soon, therefore, as they 
had cast themselves down upon the ground, they prayed, not 
for me only, but also for the whole army, for relief under our 
great thirst and hunger. For it was the fifth day we had no 
water, because there was none in that place. For we were in 
the midst of Germany, surrounded by their mountains. — But 
as soon as they had cast themselves upon the ground and 
prayed to a God, who was unknown to. me, water came down 
from heaven immediately. Upon us it was very cool, but 
upon our enemies it was fierce hail. And immediately after 
their prayers we found God to be present with us, as one that 
is impregnable and invincible. 

Beginning here, therefore, let us permit these men to be 
Christians, lest they should pray for the like weapons against 
us and obtain them. And I declare that no man who is a 
Christian is to be called in question as such. And if any man 
accuse a Christian, because he is a Christian, I declare that 
the Christian may appear openly ; and that if he confesseth 
himself to be so, but showeth that he is accused of no other 
crime but that he is a Christian, let his accuser’ be burnt 
alive. And as to him that confesseth himself to be a Chris- 
tian, and gives full evidence of the same, let not the governor 
of the province oblige him to renounce his religion, nor deprive 
him of his liberty. I will that this be confirmed by the de- 
cree of the senate. And I command that this my edict be 
set-up in Trajan’s forum, that it may be read by all. Vitru- 
sius Pollio, prefect of the city, will take care that it be sent 
into the provinces ; nor is any one who desires to have it and 
make use of it, to be hindered from taking a copy of this our 
edict which is publicly set up by me. Farewell. | 


NOTE 1. ] ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. wri Oae 


NOTE I. 
ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. 


A work, or collection of works, entitled AscENSION OF 
Isatan, originally written in Greek,— probably in Egypt, — 
and known perhaps to Origen,’ has come down*to us in an 
Aithiopic version. Laurence first translated it into English. 
Dillmann’s edition, forwarded by the kindness of.a friend, has’ 
reached me too late to make due use of it. In the ‘“ Ascen- 
sion” some views must be peculiarities of an individual, or at 
most of a small class. The work or compilation is too long 
for transcription here, but the subjoined outline will give a 
general idea of its contents. 

Ch. 1, 1-38, 11. Introductory statement. These consti- 
| 3, 12—4, 22. Causes of Isaiah’s seizure.* }tuted perhaps 
5, 1-16. Isaiah’s death. one work. 





+ «© And Isaiah is recorded. to have heen sawed by The People. But if 
any one pays no attention to this record on account of its being con- 
tained in the secret [or apocryphal] Isaiah, let him believe what is writ- 
ten, as follows, in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” — Origen, Comment. in 
- Matt. 10, 18, Opp. 3, 465 B, edit. de la Rue ; 3, 49, Lom. 

_ 2 «Then Manasseh sent and seized Isaiah. For Berial was highly 
indignant with Isaiah, on account of the vision and the manifestation, 
which manifested Samael, and because by him was revealed the coming 
- of the Beloved from the seventh heaven, his change, descent, and form, 
when he shall be changed into the form of man, his rejection, and the tor- 
ments with which the children of Israel shall torment him, as also the 
coming and doctrine of his twelve Disciples, his suspension on a tree the 
day before the sabbath, his suspension in company with men the work- 
ers of iniquity, and his burial. ‘ Moreover,’ said Isaiah, ‘the twelve,’ 
who shall be with him, shall be scandalized at what shall happen to 
him ; and watchmen shall be appointed to guard his sepulchre. There 
shall likewise be a descent of the Angel of the Christian Church, which 
in the latter days will exist in heaven ; and of the angel of the Holy 
Spirit, and of Michael the Archangel, to open his sepulchre on the third 
day, when the Beloved shall go forth sitting on the shoulders of the 
Seraphim, and shall send his twelve disciples, to teach all the [?] people 
and all nations his resurrection from the dead, so that those who believe 
in his crucifixion shall be saved ; and finally his assumption shall be into 
the seventh heaven from whence he came. Many also, who shall believe 
in him, shall speak by the Holy Spirit. And frequent signs and wonders 
shall take place in those days. But afterwards upon the subject of his 
second advent his disciples shall forsake the doctrine of the twelve Apos- 


170 ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. [NoTE I. 


THE VISION WHICH ISAIAH SAW. 


6, 1—17. Circumstances under which it took place. 

7, 1-10, 6. He narrates his ascent to the seventh heaven. 

10, 7-11, 40. Also what he heard and saw concerning 
Christ’s mission.® 

In the last two headings are items which illustrate com- 
mon Christian opinions, while others illustrate only eccentri- 
cities of the author, or of a small class to which he belonged. 

Christians generally regarded the heathen deities, or de- 
mons, as the powers of the air,- who had control of mankind, 
and whose spirit was that of contention.* 

The author personifies without plainly deifying the spirit, 
whom with the pre-existent Jesus he depicts as joint worship- 
pers of God. He terms Jesus “ the Beloved,” “the Lord.” 
Once we find ‘thy lord [God] the lord Christ,”*® but the 
bracketed word is suspicious because absent from parallel 
expressions (9, 37, 39, 40; 10, 7) and nowhere else applied to 
Jesus. 





tles, their beloved and pure faith; while much contention shall take 
place respecting his coming and the proximity of his approach. In those 
days there shall be many attached to office, destitute of wisdom ; multi- 
tudes of iniquitous elders and pastors injurious to their flocks, and ad- 
dicted to rapine; nor shall the holy pastors themselves diligently dis- 
charge their duty. Many likewise shall barter the honorable clothing of 
the saints for the garment of him, who delights in gold. Abundant 
shall be the respecters of persons in those days, and lovers of this world’s 
honor.’ ’”’ — Ascension of Isaiah, 3, i2- 25. 

3 “On account of these visions and prophecies, Samael Satan sawed 
asunder, by Manasseh, Isaiah the son of Amos, the prophet. And such 
were the things which Hezekiah delivered to Manasseh in the twenty- 
sixth year of his reign; Who nevertheless forgot them, . . . abandon- 
ing himself to the service of Satan.” — 11, 41 - 43. 

* “We then ascended into the firmament, I and he, where I beheld 
Samael and his powers. Great slaughter was perpetrated by him, and 
diabolical deeds, while each contended one against another. . . . I said 
to the angel, ‘ What is this contention?’ He answered :: ‘ Thus has it 
been from the foundation of the world, and this slaughter will continue, 
eg he, whom thou shalt behold, shall come and put an end to it.’” — 

L 9= 12, 

® “TI saw that my Lord worshipped and the angel of the Holy Spirit, 
and that both of them together glorified God.” — 9, 40. 

6 9,5. Dillmann, fora reason entirely different from the above, deems 
*‘thy lord” the only genuine part of the quotation. Here and in ce. 2, 
2; 9,39, 40; 11, 1, 10, the word God is in his translation followed by 
O. M. Ifthis imply that.the £thiopic word so translated designates the 
Supreme Deity, that word must here be spurious, Isaiah was unable 
(9, 37 ; 11, 32) to behold the Supreme Being. 


NOTE 1.] ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. 171 

He represents Jesus, in accordance with directions from his 
Father,’ as descending from the seventh through the six lower 
heavens, recognized by the inhabitants of the sixth, but al- 
tering his form in each of the five lower ones, so as. not to be 
recognized by their inhabitants. He represents him as born 
without the knowledge of his mother,’ and subsequently gives 
in a condensed shape some of his history.® 





7 “* For the Lord shall descend into the world in the latter days, and 
after his descent shall be called Christ. He shall take your form, be re- 
puted flesh, and shall be man. Then shall the God of the world be re- 
vealed by his Son. Yet will they lay their hands upon him, and sus- 


Drag him on a tree, not knowing who he is. In like manner, also, shall’ 
i 


s descent, as thou wilt perceive, be concealed from the heavens, 
through which he shall pass altogether unknown. But after he has 
escaped from the angel of death, on the third day he shall rise again, and 
continue in the world five hundred and forty-five days. And many also 
of the saints shall ascend with him, whose spirits shall not receive their 
clothing, until the Lord Christ shall ascend himself, and with him shall 
they ascend. Then, therefore, shall they assume their clothing, and 

‘thrones, and crowns, when he shall have ascended into the seventh 
heaven.” — 9, 13-18. Compare directions, 10, 7-15, and the com- 
pliance with them, 10, 19-31 ; 11, 19-32. 

Ireneus (Cont. Heres. 1, 3, 2 and 1, 30, 14) mentions some Gnos- 
tics who held that Jesus remained on earth after his resurrection eighteen 
months, which, counting the year at three hundred sixty-five days, and 
the six months at thirty days each, would make five hundred forty-five. 
The author of the Ascension, though not a Gnostic, held some Gnostic 

. views. In this case, however, 1 suspect that the teaching of Gnostic 

* leaders may have been misunderstood by their less attentive followers, or 
by their Catholic opponents. The Valentinians held (renzeus 5, 31, 2) 
“*that the Lower Regions, [nferos, are this world of ours.” If they held 
with some moderns, that the ministry of Jesus lasted eighteen months, 
they may have said that after his descent to this, our underworld, he 
taught during a year and a half. 

_ § “T beheld . . . a woman by name Mary, . . . betrothed to a man 
by name Joseph. . . . I saw that . . . after she was betrothed, she was 
found pregnant. . . . After, however, two full months . . . while Mary 
was attentively gazing on the ground, she suddenly perceived with aston- 
ishment a small infant lying before her. . . . The Lord was come to his 
inheritance. . . . Many affirmed that she did not bring forth at all, ... 
all knew that he was, but knew not whence he was. Then they took him 
and came to Nazareth of Galilee.” —11, 2-15. Compare in Norton's 
Genwineness (3, 167) the Valentinian view that the Aon Savior ‘‘ passed 
through Mary . . . without receiving anything from her substance.” 

9 “* When, however, he was grown up, I saw that he performed great 
signs and wonders in the land of Israel and Jerusalem ; that foreigners 
hated him and raised up the children of Israel against him, not knowing 
who he was; that they delivered him to the king, and crucified him ; 
and that he descended to the angel of death, In Jerusalem I beheld him 
hanging on a tree; and after the third day rising again, and remaining 


a 


172 ‘SIBYLLINE ORACLES. [NoTE. J. 


If cc.6—11 be a distinct document its object was to de- 
velop what preceded. Dillmann has translated the work into 
Latin.” He thinks (Proleg. § 4) that he finds in it three 
documents, namely ; a Jewish one, cc. 2, 1-8, 12; 5, 2-14; 
a Christian one, cc. 6, 1-11, 1, 23-40, to which, he thinks, 
another Christian prefixed ch. 1 (except verse 3) and added 
ll, 42, 43. 





NOTE J. 


SIBYLLINE ORACLES. _ 


MEnTION has been made in a former work? of two acrostics 
by Christian writers, one complete and the other imperfect, 
which remain to us in the Sibylline Oracles. Whether they 
were written with controversial intent may be a question. 
The finished one treats of the future Judgment. The unfin- 
ished one has more to do, though not very plainly, with 
Christ’s life on earth, and was the better calculated of the 
two for controversy with heathens. 

Three pieces which deal more plainly with Christ’s life on 
earth are here subjoined, as also a fourth which does so in a 
slight degree. Any argument from them implies that to no 
one save Jesus were they applicable. Their applicability to 
him, when not conceded, must have been based on Pseudo- 
Heathen records. 


No. 1. 


Then to men shall a son of the Great God come — 

In the flesh, being likened to mortals on earth, 325 
[His name] has four vowels ; but its consonants 

I announce as two; and will tell the whole number; 
Eight units, and as many tens, 





on earth for a certain period. Then the angel, who was conducting me, 
said : ‘ Understand, Isaiah.’ When immediately I saw him send forth 
his twelve Disciples, and ascend from the world.” — 11, 18-22. ; 

10 Ascensio Isaiw, Athiop. et Lat. cum Proleg. Adnotat. [ete.], edita 
ab A. Dillmann, Lips. 1877. Its author had access to two manuscripts 
besides the one used by Laurence. There is in the Lutheran Quarterly 
(8, 518—535) an English translation of this work by G. H. Schodde. 

1 See Judaism, p. 444. 


NOTE J.] SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 173 


And eight hundreds to the incredulous 
His name will exhibit ;* but apprehend thou mentally 330 
The Christ of the Immortal God, Son of the Highest. 





He will fulfil the law of God, not destroy it ; 7 , 
Furnishing an antitype* copy, and will teach all things [needful]. — 
To him priests shall bear an offering of gold, 
Myrrh and frankincense ; for all these things will he [?] perform. 335 
ut when a certain voice in the desert 
Shall come proclaiming to mortals, and shall cry out to all : — 
“Let us make straight paths, and throw away 
Wickedness from the heart, and let every mortal body 
Be enlightened with water, that being born from above, 340 
They may no longer transgress what is just,” 
(But a barbarous mind,* persuaded by tage | 
Cutting off [his head] shall give it as a reward.) Then a sign to 
mortals 
Shall suddenly take place, when guarded there shall come 
From the land of Egypt a beautiful stone, but against this 845 
The Hebrew people shall stumble ; but the Gentiles shall assemble 





_2—T 10 
o : 8 Units = 8 
= 200 8 Tens 80 
O 70 8 Hundreds 800 
Tt 400 — 
= 200 888 
888 


Perhaps repetition of the number “‘ eight” was connected in the writer’s 
mind with an idea of some secret signification belonging to it. Justin 
(Dial. 24, 41) and Barnabas (Zpist. 15) term Sunday the eighth day. The 
former says: ‘‘ I can show you, gentlemen, . . . that the Eighth Day 
had a mystery, proclaimed through these [before-mentioned circum- 
stances] by God, superior to [that of] the Seventh.” — Justin Martyr, 
Dial. 24.- Compare 41. 

In Egypt, where Greeks, by attention to astronomy, had detected, as 
was supposed, an eighth sphere or heaven —that of the fixed stars — far 
above and beyond the one in which the planet Saturn was supposed to 
move, the Valentinian Gnostics selected this eighth sphere as the dwell- 
on gee. the Supreme Being who had sent Christ. Compare Juda- 

8 bn the meaning of antitype compare (Judaism, p. 349) the antitheses 
of Ireneeus. After an imbittered war between Jews and Romans an idea 
was advanced by some Christians that the events of the Old Testament 
were antithetically repeated in the New. Perhaps the idea may be in- 
tended above. 

* Compare Note E, footnote 4. 


174 SIBYLLINE ORACLES. [Nore J. 


Under his lead ; for the God who rules from on high, 
Through him they shall know, and the straight path of universal 
light. 





For he will show eternal life to mortals, 
To the chosen, but inflict fire eternally on the lawless. 350 
And then he will heal the sick, also the blameworthy, 
[Of their sins ?] all who put trust in him. 
The blind shall see, the lame shall walk, 
‘The deaf shall listen, the dumb shall talk ; 
He shall eject demons; the dead shall rise ; 355 
He shall walk the waves and in a desert place 
From five loaves and a marine fish 
Shall satiate five thousand, and the remnants of these 
Shall fill twelve baskets for [the Sacred Virgin].® 
And then Israel being drunk shall not perceive. 360 
Nor hear, being burdened with dull ears. 


But when anger of the Highest shall visit the Hebrews 
In its rage, and shall take away their faith,® 
Because they destroyed the Heavenly Son of God. 


And then blows and vile spittle 365 
Shall Israel with polluted lips inflict on him. 
For food gall, and for drink undiluted vinegar 
They shall godlessly give him, impelled by wicked frenzy 
In their breast and heart, but not seeing with their eyes — 
Blinder than moles, more frightful than reptiles 370 
Poisonous serpents — fettered by heavy sleep. 

But when he shall spread out his hands and embrace all 

things, 

And shall bear a crown of thorns, and his side shall 
They pierce with spears (wherefore during three hours, 
Dark monstrous night shall come in mid-day), 375 
Then indeed the temple of Solomon to mortals ) 
Shall give a great sign, when He shall enter 
The underworld, announcing resurrection to the dead. 


» 





5 The corresponding line, 8, 278, for ‘‘ Sacred Virgin,” reads ‘‘ Hope 
of the Peoples.” Lactantius quotes it, ‘‘ Hope of the Multitude.” 

6 This may mean, destroy their worship by destruction of their tem- 
ple. The passage breaks the connection. Were line 364 amended thus, 
“So that they sHALL destroy the Heavenly Son of God,” part of the dif- 
ficulty would be removed. 

6 Its rent veil indicating (Origen, Ser. Com. in Matt. § 1388; Opp. 
3, 927 A) a veil removed from the vision of believers, 


NoTE J.] SIBYLLINE ORACLES, 175 


But when he shall come in three days to light again, 
And shall show mortals his sleep,’ and teach all things, 380 
Ascending in the clouds he shall journey to heaven, 
Leaving to the world the gospel dispensation. 
In his name a new shoot shall sprout 
From the Gentiles, guided by God’s law. 

After these things there shall be Apostle ® guides, 385 
And then shall be a cessation of prophets. 

Thenceforward Hebrews shall reap an evil harvest. 
And much gold and silver shall the Roman king 
Plunder. And afterwards other kings 
Shall continually arise, as former ones perish, 390 
And shall afflict mortals. But to those men shall be great 
Destruction, when they shall rule with haughty injustice. 
But when the temple of Solomon on the mighty earth 
Shall fall, cast down by men of barbarous speech, 
Brazen-breastplated, and Hebrews be expelled the land 895 
Wanderers [and] slaughtered, and shall mix much darnel 
With their wheat, noxious sedition shall be among all 
Mankind ; cities, mutually insulted, 
Shall bewail (since they performed an evil act), 
Receiving the great God’s anger in their bosom. 400 

Sibylline Oracles, 1, 324 — 400. 


No. 2. 


Ny heartily sing the Immortal’s great and famous Son 
To whom the Highest Parent granted assumption of the 
throne . 


When not yet born, since a second time in flesh 

Was he born, being washed by the pouring of the river 

Jordan, which is borne along in a blue course ; 5 
Who, escaping the fire,® shall first see the sweet 

Spirit” coming on [him] with the white wings of a dove. 

There shall sprout a pure shoot ; the fountains shall bubble up ; 





7 The meaning probably is, ‘‘shall narrate to mortals the events of his 
three days below.” There is, however, a different reading : ‘‘shall show 
mortals a type.” 

8 The Greek word oréao is perhaps an abbreviation for ’AwécroAot. 
Otherwise the meaning must be ‘‘ multitudinous~ guides,” though the 
Sarenn would be an unusual one. 

An allusion possibly to the idea (Justin, Dial. 88) that the Jordan 
took fire at the baptism of Jesus. Another reading gives a different 
sense, 

10 For rveduare ywomevov read mvedu’ émvywopevor, 


176 SIBYLLINE ORACLES. [Nore J. 


He shall show men the ways, shall show the paths 

To heaven ; shall teach all in wise parables ; 10 
Shall lead to rectitude and persuade a contrary people, 
Boasting a praiseworthy descent from his Heavenly Father, 
He shall walk the waves, free men from diseases, 

Raise the dead, drive off multitudinous ailments, 

From one piéys roll of bread men shall be satiated. 15 


Sibylline Oracles, 6, 1—15. 


The remaining thirteen lines of Book 6 are by a later 
writer. Some of them speak in the past, not in the future 
tense.” 


No. 3. 
Not in glory, but as mortal [about] to be judged™ he will 


come, 
Pitiable, dishonored, formless,“ that he may give hope to the 
pitiable, 
Also [fair] form to perishable flesh and heavenly faith 
To unbelievers he will give ; and [anew] form man, 
(Originally moulded by God’s hands) 266 
Whom the serpent misled, that he should stray 





11 When the house of David shall produce a plant in whose hand 
The whole world, earth, heaven and sea shall be. 
Lightnings on earth shall be [such] as formerly they saw 
The two who were born from each other’s side ; 
It shall be [thus] when the earth shall rejoice in hope of the Son. 
On you alone, Land of Sodom, misery shall lie, 
For senseless, you did not recognize your God, 
Trifling with mortal perceptions, but from the thorn 
Crowning him with a crown,’mixed frightful gall 
For insult and 6wya drink, which shall cause you grievous suffer. 
ing. 
O wood most blessed on which God was suspended ; 
Earth shall not have you, but you shall see heaven, 
When the fiery eye of God shall dart lightning on the temple. 
Sibylline Oracles, 6, 16-28, 

12 It was customary in ancient times for one awaiting his trial to indi- 
cate by his apparel and by his unshaved or unwashed countenance that 
he was in a pitiable condition. This was intended as an appeal to sym- 
pathy and compassion. ‘‘Cicero . . . changed his attire, and assuming 
the garb of one accused, went round the forum soliciting the compassion 
of all whom he met.” —Smith, Dict. of Biog.1, p. 713, col. 2, art. 
Cicero. ' 

18 See Ch. III. § 14. 


NOTE J.] SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 177 


To a deadly fate, and take knowledge of good and evil, 

So that leaving God he should serve mortal customs : 

To him the All-ruler, taking [him] specially as adviser, 

Said in the beginning : “ Child, Ler us Bota * make 265 

(Forming from our own image) mortal tribes. 

I now with my hands, then you by teaching shall heal 

Our form, that we may establish a mutual work.” 

Mindful therefore, of this purpose, he will come to be judged, 
Furmshing an antitype ? representation of the undefiled virgin **) 
nlightening with water by the hands of the elders. 271 

Doing all things by a word, healing every disease, 

He shall lay the winds with a word, and calm the sea 

When raging, with his feet, treading it in peace and trust. 

From five loaves and a marine fish 215 

He shall satiate five thousand men in a desert, 

And taking all the surplus fragments, 

Shall fill twelve baskets as a hope for the people. 

He will invite souls of the blessed and love the wretched 

Who, scoffed at, shall do good for evil, 280 
While] beaten, scourged, desiring poverty. 
He] perceiving and seeing and hearing all things, 

Shall look into the interior, and lay it bare for conviction, 

For he is the hearing, understanding and sight of all, 

The Logos creating forms, whom all things obey, 285 

Savior of the-dead, healer of all disease. 

He will fall at last into Law-less and rairu-less™ hands, 

They will give God blows with unholy hands, 

And with polluted lips vile spittle. 

He will give to the blows an utterly undefiled back ; 290 

[For he will give himself to the world undefiled in virginity,7*] 

And buffeted, will be silent, that no one may recognize 

Who, of whom, he is, whence he came, that he may talk to 

the dead.” 





14 See Note M, text prefixed to footnote 17. 

15 See note 3. 

16 That is Eve, who was deemed by many a virgin until her expulsion 
a i aa Compare line 291 and see Underworld Mission, Appendix, 

ote H. 

17 Law-less means heathen. Farru-less may mean Jews or heathens. 

8 Literally, ‘‘an undefiled virgin.” 

19 The meaning seems to be that, if recognized, he would not have been 
put to death, and could not have fulfilled his mission in the underworld. 
Compare Underworld Mission, 3d edit. p. 79. 


178 SIBYLLINE ORACLES. [Note s. 


He ™ will bear a crown of thorns: for of thorns 
The eternal crown of chosen Saints shall come. 295 
They shall pierce his side with a spear on account of their law, 
Since from reeds,” moved by another spirit, 
The soul’s inclinations, anger and revenge, are nourished. 
He will spread his hands and measure all the world. 
Giving gall for food and vinegar to drink, 300 
They shall spread this table of inhospitality. 

But when all these things mentioned shall be finished, 
Then in him the whole Law is abolished which at first 
Was given to mortal opinions because * of a disobedient people. 
Rent is the veil of the temple, and in mid-day 305 
Shall be dark monstrous night for three hours. 
For, cessation of service to temple and concealed Law, 
Veiled by worldly fantasies, was again manifested 
On the Ruler’s descent into the enduring earth. 
He will come to the underworld announcing to all 310 
The consecrated, hope, end of ages and the last day, 
And will abolish death by sleeping till the third day ; 
And then, freed from the departed, will come to light, 
The first to show the chosen a beginning of the resurrection. 


Washed in the waters of an immortal fountain 815 
rom their former wickedness, that born again from above 
They may no longer be slaves to immoralities of the world. ]} 


First the Lord is seen by ns own [disciples] 
In the flesh as formerly. On hands and feet he will show 
To HIS own, four marks impressed on his members. 320 
The East, the West, the South, the North, 
For so many kingdoms of the world shall fulfil 
The lawless reprehensible deed on our image. 
Sibylline Oracles, 8, 256 —323. 





20 The next half-dozen lines, 299-304, are given in the order of Alex- 
andre. 

21 The word &kavOos has a double meaning, indicating thorn and also 
(according to Liddell-and Scott) ‘‘a plant much used in works of art, 
especially Corinthian capitals.” 

22 The word for spear and reed xédapos is the same in the original. 

28 Compare Justin Martyr, Dial. 43, quoted in Judaism on p. 343. 


NOTE K.] HERMES TRISMEGISTUS, MERCURY. 179 


No. 4. 


Hail, Zion, much suffering daughter, 
Thy king enters riding on a colt, 325 
Appearing gentle to all, that our yoke, 
Slavish, grievous, burdening our necks he may carry off, 
And end godless laws and galling fetters. 
Know him thy God, the Son of God, 
Praising him and having him in thy heart ; 330 
Love him with thy soul and bear his name, 
Reject those who preceded,™ and wash from his blood. 
For observances and petitions do not propitiate him ; 
Nor, Immortal, does he heed perishable sacrifices, : 
But, uttering with thy mind the cure of his holy teaching, 335 
Know this one, and you shall see his Parent. 

Sibylline Oracles, 8, 324 — 336. 





NOTE K. 
HERMES TRISMEGISTUS, MERCURY THRICE GREATEST. 


In the early part of the second century astrological and 
other works — doubtless of heathen origin — were circulat- 
ing in the name of Mercury.’ This probably suggested to 
some Christian of the less scrupulous sort, that Mercury might 
be made to teach better things than astrology. In order that 
his production might seem even more authoritative than prior 
ones in the name of that god, he ascribed it to Hermes Tris- 
megistus, or Mercury, Thrice Greatest, and designates the 
production as Adyos réAeos, the “ Perfect Discourse,” or the 
“* Final? Discourse,” intending probably to give it position 
above all other productions of the same personage. 





24 The meaning seems to be, reject the Jews and by so doing wash 
your hands from the crime of putting Jesus to death. 

1 Clement mentions (Strom. 6, 35; Opp. edit. Potter, p. 757) four 
books on astrology and two others, one of which contained hymns to the 
gods, while the second contained a computation of, or rules for, a reyal 

ife, 

2 A passage attributed to Orpheus (Cohort. 15, cited in Judaism, 
pp. 337-338) makes him say to his son, ‘‘ I speak truth lest [my ?] former 
views should rob you of longed-for eternity.” Perhaps in the present 
case the heading of the Discourse meant’ that the views here given were 
the latest teachings of Mercury. 


180 HERMES TRISMEGISTUS, MERCURY. [NOTE kK. 


In the first half of the fourth century Lactantius prefixes to 
his quotations from this work an account of Mercury,* which can 
hardly have originated earlier than the latter half of the third 
century. In it Mercury is made to proclaim a Supreme Being 
devoid of name, also one subordinate and created God, and 
some other views common among Christians. 

“This [Mercury] wrote books, and indeed many of them, 
pertaining to the knowledge of divine things, in which he 
asserts the majesty of the Supreme and Sole God, and calls 
him by the same names as ourselves, ‘Gop and FaTHer,’ and 
lest any one should ask his name, says that he is dvevupoyr, 
‘WITHOUT NAME.’ . . . His words are these: ‘GOD IS ONE, BUT 
THE ONE DOES NOT NEED A NAME, FOR THE SELF-EXISTENT IS 
WITHOUT NAME.’ ” — Div. Inst. 1, 6. 

‘Hermes [Mercury] . . . who not only said that man had 
been made in the image of God, but also tried to explain it.” 
— Div. Inst. 2, 11. 

“Hermes [Mercury | affirms that those who have known God 
are not only safe from attacks of demons, but are not even 
subject to fate. He says: ‘THE SOLE PROTECTION IS PRACTICAL 
MONOTHEISM, FOR NEITHER AN EVIL DEMON NOR FATE HAS CON- 
TROL OF THE PRACTICALLY MONOTHEISTIC MAN, FOR GOD FREES 
THE PRACTICAL MONOTHEIST FROM EVERY EVIL, FOR PRACTICAL 
MONOTHEISM I8 THE ONE AND SOLE GOOD IN MEN.’ ” — Dw. Inst. 
2, 16. 

‘“ Trismegistus, who, I hardly know how, investigated al- 
most all truth, often described the excellence and majesty of 
the Word.” — Div. Inst. 4, 9. 

“The Father God, . . . since he lacks parents, is justly . 
named by Trismegistus, ‘ FATHERLESS and MOTHERLESS.’” — 
Div. Inst. 4, 13. 





8 Lactantius, after devoting five chapters to other matter, says : 
‘* Let us now pass to divine testimonies, but first I will bring forward one 
which is akin to divine, both because of its exceeding age, and because 
he whom I -shall name was transferred from mortals into the category of 

ods. 

‘In the writings of Cicero, C. Cotta, high-priest, disputing against 
the Stoics, . . . states that there were five Mercuries, and after enumer- 
ating four of them in order, [says] the fifth was that one by whom Argus 
was killed, and who ‘ fled on that account into Egypt, and delivered laws 
and literature (/itteras) to the Egyptians.’ . . . 

‘* He also founded a town which even now isin Greek called Hermopo- 
lis; . . . who, although a man, was most ancient and most instructed 
in every kind of learning, so that [his] knowledge of many things and arts 
fixed on him the name of Trismegistus.” — Div. Inst. 1, 6. 


NOTE K.] HERMES TRISMEGISTUS, MERCURY. 181 


“ Hermes Trismegistus, . . . who agrees in words as well 
as substance with us, that is, with the prophets whom we fol- 
low, and speaks thus concerning justice: ‘O SoN, ADORE AND 
WORSHIP THIS verbum TEACHING,’ but the sole worship of God 
is not to be evil. . . . ‘ Tuess [frankincense and spices], AND 
THINGS SIMILAR TO THESE, ARE NOT APPROPRIATE TO HIM, FOR 
HE IS FULL OF ALL THINGS WHICH EXIST AND HAS NOT THE 
SLIGHTEST NEED OF ANY THING, BUT WE ADORE HIM BY GIVING 
THANKS, FOR HIS SACRIFICE IS SIMPLY BENEDICTION.’ ” — Div. 
Inst. 6, 25. 

*‘ Hermes [Mercury] did not ignore that man was formed 
by God and in the image of God.” — Div. Inst. 7, 4. 

“] have made clear, as I think, that the soul is not disso- 
luble. It remains to cite the witnesses by whose authority 
my arguments may be corroborated. Neither will I call the 
prophets to testify . . . but those [witnesses] rather to whom 
it is necessary that the rejecters of true religion veritatem 
should yield credence. Hermes, describing the nature of 
man, . . . introduces these [remarks]. God ‘MADE THE SAME 
FROM BOTH NATURES, THE MORTAL AND THE IMMORTAL, [INTO] 
THE ONE NATURE OF MAN, MAKING HIM PARTLY IMMORTAL, PARTLY 
MORTAL, AND PLACED HIM HALF-WAY BETWEEN A DIVINE IMMOR- 
TAL NATURE AND A MORTAL MUTABLE ONE, THAT, SEEING ALL 
THINGS | MORTAL AND IMMORTAL |, HE MIGHT ADMIRE ALL THINGS.’ ” 
— Div. Inst. 7, 13. 

“In that book which is called the Perfect (or Final) Dis- 
course, after enumeration of the evils concerning which we 
have spoken, he adds these things: ‘Bur WHEN THESE THINGS 
SHALL THUS TAKE PLACE, O EscuLarPius, THEN THE LoRD, AND 
FaTHER, AND Gop, AND CREATOR, OF THE FIRST AND ONE [suB- 
ORDINATE] GOD, LOOKING AT THE THINGS WHICH TAKE PLACE — 
EVEN sucH [as OccuR] By His WILL — OPPOSING TO DISORDER 
WHAT IS GOOD AND RECALLING WHAT WANDERS, AND PURIFYING 
WHAT IS WICKED, SOMETIMES DISSOLVING BY MUCH WATER, AND 
SOMETIMES BURNING OUT BY THE FIERCEST FIRE, AND SOMETIMES 
CRUSHING OUT BY WARS AND FAMINES, LEADS [BACK AGAIN] TO 
THE ANCIENT CONDITION AND REPLACES His WORLD.’ ” — Div. 
Inst. 7, 18. Compare Judaism at Rome, p. 56. 


182 ALLEGED UNCANONICAL GOSPELS. [NoTE -L.. 


NOTE L. 


ALLEGED UNCANONICAL GOSPELS. 


Luke in the beginning of his Gospel (1, 1, 2) mentions 
that “‘many have undertaken to arrange a narrative of the 
events accomplished among us, conformably to the accounts 
given us by those who were eye-witnesses from the begin- 
ning, and [who] have become ministers of the religion.” No 
trace remains of the narratives to which he refers unless 
Matthew’s Gospel, then extant only in Hebrew, was among 
those which he had in mind. His form of expression renders 
probable that some individuals after listening to detached por- 
tions of the Master’s history had endeavored in writing to 
connect and arrange them. Probably these imperfect attempts 
were laid aside by their authors or readers so soon as fuller 
and more connected narratives appeared. 

Some modern writers suppose that various Gospels ex- 
isted in the second century, from which the four now in use 
were selected, or out of which they were formed or in op- 
position to which they were fabricated. This view, in a erude 
shape, is expressed by Hone and Tischendorf.? It is also held 





1 «* After the writings contained in the New Testament were selected 
from the numerous Gospels and Epistles then in existence, what became 
of the books that were rejected by the compilers ?” — Hone, Apoc. N. 
Test. p. v.- In answer to this, Hone presents his reader a collection of 
documents classified by him as Gospels and Epistles, not one of which 
professes to record the MINISTRY of Jesus. 

‘*The definition of Apocryphal Gospels is [Gospels] opposed to Canon- 
ical ones ; unless you prefer to contend that in the earliest times Canon- 
ical Gospels were [created ?] in opposition to apocryphal ones. . .. When 
first the Canonical Gospels by consent of the Church began to be sepa- 
rated from the great number of writings in circulation, it is obvious that 
yet other and new [writings] which were issued could not aspire to evan- 
gelical authority unless they feigned the same valued peculiarity (eirtutem) 
with those [canonical ones]. .. . 

‘¢ Whence it is to be concluded that no Gospels were reckoned apocry- 
phal before the Canon of Sacred Books existed in the ancient church.” — 
C. Tischendorf, De Evang. Apoc. Origine et Usu, pp. 1, 2. 

Tischendorf, after arguing (pp. 3, 4) from Ireneus, Tatian, and The- 
ophilus, writers after the middle of the second century, that ‘‘in the 
opinion of the most numerous and of the principal [Christian] teachers 
the Gospel Canon pene jam constitisset had now been almost established,” 


NOTE L.] ALLEGED UNCANONICAL GOSPELS. 183 


in several shapes by other writers, especially in Germany, an 
extract from one of the more thoughtful of whom is sub- 
joined.? Attention to four meanings of the word Gospel and 
to some historical facts should precede examination of these 
uncanonical works. 

One meaning of this term is A RECORD OF THE LIFE OF JESUS. 
A second meaning, common among early Christians, was THE 
FOUR RECORDS or Gospels in contradistinction from the Epis- 
tles. A third meaning is THE INTERPRETATION PUT UPON 
CHRIST'S TEACHING, or that of his Apostles, by an individual 
or asect. Thus the Gospel according to Calvin, or according 
to Wesley, would be readily understood as meaning the inter- 
pretation by those individuals of New Testament teaching. A 
fourth meaning is, A GOSPEL, or THE FOUR GOSPELS, AS TRANS- 
LATED OR ANNOTATED BY SOME INDIVIDUAL. Thus “ Camp- 
bell’s Four Gospels” would be readily understood to mean his 
translation of, and annotations on, the four Gospels. Among 
early Christians such a work would have been termed Camp- 
bell’s Gospel, the latter word distinguishing the four collec- 
tively from the Epistles. 

In the days of Irenzeus and of Tatian, probably about a. p. 
170, it is obvious that four Gospels only were in common use. 





adds (p. 4), ‘‘ therefore from the time which immediately preceded the 
. middle of the second century until almost the close of the fourth, was 
the era of Apocryphal Gospels.” Compare views of Strauss on p. xiv. 

It would — with the exception of our four Gospels — be difficult or 
impossible to point out in the era mentioned a single document profess- 
ied of Christian origin, which assumed to narrate the life or ministry of 

esus. 

_ An earlier and common error in Europe paved the way for such views 
as the foregoing. It appears in the following extract from Mosheim: 
** Not long after the Savior’s ascension, various histories of his life and 
doctrines, full of impositions and fables, were composed by persons, . . . 
superstitious, simple, and piously fraudulent ; and afterwards, various 
other spurious writings were palmed upon the world, falsely inscribed 
with the names of the holy Apostles.” — Ecce. Hist. Century I. Part 2, 
Ch. 2, § 17, Murdock’s trans. 1, p. 73. Mosheim, however, did not 
suppose that the Gospels and other writings of the New Testament had 
merely been selected out of this mess without abundant evidence of their 
authorship. 

2 **Tn addition to our canonical Gospels, Christian antiquity was ac- 
quainted with several others ; and it is in the last degree needful to ob- 
tain as accurate a knowledge of these as possible, for the opinion is pretty 
wide-spread that some of them are older and more original than our 
canonical Gospels.” — De Wette, Introduct. to N. Test., p. 87 ; Froth- 
ingham’s trans. 


184 ALLEGED UNCANONICAL GOSPELS. [NOTE L. 


The effort of Irenzeus to explain wHy this precise number ex- 
isted implies that its existence was well recognized.* Tatian 
also made a Diatessaron,* a harmony or synopsis of the four. 
Somewhat earlier we find two classes of men, intensely un- 
like each other, called Gnostics. Both classes originated after 
an imbittered war between Jews and Gentiles, and both held 
that the God of the Jews was not the God of the Christians, 
but a different being.® Marcion, the leader of one class, adopted, 
or made special use of, the Gospel of Luke, who was a Gentile 
and a companion of Paul. From this he expurgated what he 
could not, even by forced explanation, fit into his system, but 





8 Trenzeus, after specifying (cont. Heres. 3, 1, 1) Matthew, Mark, 
Luke, and John as having each written one of the Gospels, adds as fol- 
lows : ‘‘ Nor can there be more or fewer Gospels than these. For as 
there are four regions of the world in which we live, and four cardinal 
winds, and the Church is spread over all the earth, and the Gospel is the 
pillar and support of the Church, and the breath of life ; in like manner 
is it fit that it should have four pillars.” — Cont. Heres. 3, 11,8 ; Opp. 1, 
pp. 467, 468, edit. Stieren, Norton’s trans. On. -p. 467 Stieren has er- 
roneously c. 12 for e, 11. 

Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. 3, 37) mentions Quadratus as engaged in teach- 

ing at the same time with the daughters of Philip, and states that the 
disciples of that age were accustomed ‘‘to distribute the writing of the 
divine Gospels.” As Philip was executed in A. D. 52 (see Judaism, 
p- 238) the ministry of his daughters can scarcely be placed later than 
the close of the first century. Quadratus lived into the first quarter of 
the second century, for he presented an Apology to Hadrian. Eusebius 
would not have termed any Gospels DIVINE except the four recognized in 
his day, and unless his information were inaccurate, these four must in 
the time of Quadratus have had an established authority. 
_ 4 “ Tatian putting together, I know not on what plan, a synopsis and 
harmony of the evangelists, called this 7d 6:4 tecodpwy, ‘The four 
collated,’ which even yet is in cireulation among some.” — Busebius, 
Ecc. Hist. 4,29. In the fifth century Theodoret (Heret. Fab. 1, 20) took 
away two hundred copies of this Diatessaron which he found used and 
esteemed by churches that he regarded as sound in the faith. His only 
charge against it is its omission of the genealogies (which perhaps Tatian 
could not harmonize) and of the descent from David. 

5 See touching these men Judaism, pp. 331 — 336. 

6 Irenzeus speaks (3, 11, 7) of Marcion ‘‘as mutilating the Gospel 
according to Luke.” Compare Ireneus 1, 27, 2. Tertullian says: 
‘*Marcion seems to have selected Luke as the [one] whom he would cut 
up.” Adv. Mare. 4,2. Compare in Norton’s Genuineness, Vol. 3, Ap- 
pendix, Note C, his remarks on this Gospel. 

Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, seems to have used the same pr 
gated copy of Luke. The term Gospel of Marcion, or Gospel of Apelles, 
meant sometimes this expurgated copy, and sometimes, perhaps, the sys- 
tem which they based upon it. Neither of these two individuals doubted 
the authorship of the four Gospels, but they supposed the evangelists, be- 


NOTE L. | ALLEGED UNCANONICAL GOSPELS. 185 


used from the other Gospels what he thought could be pressed 
into its support. 

The chief division of the other class was the Valentinians, or 
followers of Valentinus. These used especially, but not ex- 
clusively, John’s Gospel.7 Heracleon, one of them, wrote a 
commentary on it, the remnants of which will be found col- 
lected by Massuet in his edition of Irenzeus, pp. 362 - 376, in 
which work also an extract from his commentary on Luke will 
be found on p. 362. Another portion of this class used Mark’s 
Gospel.* Basilides will be subsequently mentioned. 

It seems impossible that other records concerning the min- 
istry of Jesus should have been afloat in Gentile communities, 
and that the Gnostics, instead of drawing from them, should 
have needed forced interpretation and, in the case of Marcion, 
mutilation of the records yet in use. 

We have the direct testimony of Irenzeus that the Heretics, 
under which title he specifies the Ebionites, Marcionites, Val- 
entinians, and others, used our Gospels.? This testimony 
comes from one who would have been prompt to point out any 
tendency of the Heretics to use records other than what he 
deemed sanctioned. We have, moreover, the statement of 
Tertullian that the Heretics should not be allowed to use the 
. Christian Scriptures,” — a superfluous statement, if the rec- 
ords which they used were from other hands than those rec- 
_ ognized by Christians generally. 





cause of their Jewish education, to have misunderstood the Master’s 
teaching. 

A letter of tne preserved only in a Latin translation, implies that 
Marcion and Apelles, even if they made most use of Luke, must have used 
the remaining three Gospels. ‘‘ You see... with what expurgation Mar- 
cion expurgated the Gospels or the Epistles Aposto/wm, or with what his 
successor, Apelles, after him [did the same].” — Origen, Zpist. Opp. 1, 
p. 6 B, edit. de la Rue. 

7 <*The Valentinians making copious use of that [Gospel] which is 
according to John.” — Irenzeus, 3, 11, 7. 

8 «Those who distinguish Jesus from the Christ, and say that Christ 
remained without suffering, but that Jesus suffered, preferring the Gos- 
pel according to Mark, if they read it with the love of truth, can be cor- 
rected.” — Ibid. This perhaps means that Mark’s Gospel admitted less 
easily than John’s of vague and fanciful interpretations. 

% **Such is the established authority of the Gospels that the Heretics 
themselves render testimony to them, and each one of them who goes out 
oe Christianity] endeavors to confirm his teaching out of them.” — 

enzeus, cont. Heres. 3,11, 7. The passage is found only in the Latin 
translation. 


10 “They (the Heretics) offer the Scriptures, and by this their auda- 


186 ALLEGED UNCANONICAL GOSPELS. [NOTE L. 


We will now endeavor to classify these supposed uncanoni- 
cal Gospels. Lack of leisure and sight prevent that fuller 
treatment which I could wish.. The general reader will find 
all that he needs in Norton’s Genuineness, 3, pp. 214 —286 ; 
abridged edit. pp. 340-391. 


1. Recorps. Matthew and Luke under other names... Mat- 
thew’s Gospel, in what was then called Hebrew,” was used 
by Hebrew Christians, also called Nazarenes or Ebionites, and 
hence received the name of ‘‘ Gospel to the Hebrews,” “to the 
Nazarenes,” “ to the Ebionites,” and also according to Jerome 
** Gospel of the Apostles,” otherwise called, perhaps, “of the 
Twelve Apostles.” ? Some copies of it had interpolations not 
extant in Matthew.” 

Bartholomew is said to have carried this Hebrew Gospel 





city at once influence some. . . . We interpose that they are not to be 
admitted toa dispute from the Scriptures.” — De Prescript. Horet. 15 ; 
Opp. p. 236 C. ‘The reason for what we propose is obvious ; that the 
Heretics are not to be admitted to enter upon an argument from the 
Scriptures. . . . Not being Christians, nullum jus capiunt Christiana- 
rum literarum, they have no legal right to the Christian records.” — 
De Prescript. Heret. 37; Opp. 242 D. 

11 The Nazarenes ‘‘ have the Gospel according to Matthew in its fullest 
shape, in the Hebrew language.” — Epiphanius, Heres. 29, 9. The 
Ebionites ‘‘ also receive the Gospel according to Matthew, for they, as 
also the followers of Cerinthus, use this Gospel ; they call it [the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews.” — Heres. 30,3. ‘‘ Matthew . . . compose 
the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words. . . . Further: the 
Hebrew itself is preserved until this day in the library at Caesarea,” — 
Jerome, de Vir. Iilust. 3; Opp. 2, 833, edit. Vallars. ‘‘The Gospel 
also which is called according to the Hebrews, and which was lately 
translated by me into the Greek and Latin, and which Origen often 
used.” — De Vir. Iilust. 2; Opp. 2, 831. Cp. Euseb. Ecc. Hist. 3, 255 
‘¢The Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use . . . and whichis 
called by many |or most], a plerisqus, the authentic [Gospel] of Mat- 
thew.” — Jerome, Comment. in Matt. 12, 13 ; Opp. 7, 77. 

12 «The Gospel according to the Hebrews . . . which the Nazarenes 
yet use —[that, namely] according to the Apostles, or as many think, 
according to Matthew |in its genuine form ?]— which is in the library of 
Ceesarea.” — Jerome, cont. Pelag. 3; Opp. 2, col. 782, edit. Vallars. 
Compare Hom. 1 on Luke, Origenis Opp. 3, 933 B (5,87). Jerome omits, 
and the Homilies use, the word ‘‘ Twelve” before Apostles. If the Apos- 
tles while working collectively in Judea used any written Gospel it must 
have been this, the others being in Greek. 

13 See ancient quotations from the Gospels in Grabe, Spicileg., 1, 
pp. 25-31. Those by Clement and Origen (pp. 26-27) must have ex- 
isted in the second or third century. Those quoted by other writers may 
in several instances have found their way into it at a later date. The 


NOTE L.] ALLEGED UNCANONICAL GOSPELS. 137 


to India.“ Cerinthus is said to have made special use of it.¥ 
Hence the terms (Jerome Prefat. in Matt.) “Gospel of Bar- 
tholomew,” (Epiphan. Heres. 51,7) ‘Gospel of Cerinthus.” 
These terms, however, can never have had much currency, 
and may have been unknown to the first three centuries. 

_ The Gospel of Marcion or of Apelles (see note 6) was an 
altered copy of Luke. 

2. CoMMENTARIES AND Expositions. Basilides wrote an ex- 
position of the Gospels in twenty-four books,’® which at a later 
date seems to have been called his Gospel.” The Gospel of 
Thomas, judged by our only extract from it,’ may have been 
some exposition of passages in the Gospels. A Gospel of Truth, 
attributed to the Valentinians by Irenzeus (3, 11, 9, cp. Tertul- 
lian, de Preescript. Heret. 49), must have been expository or 
doctrinal. Nothing historical from it is quoted or contro- 
verted by any. one. 

3. Docrrinat Works. Serapion early in the third century 
mentions the Gospel of Peter.” The work, obviously not his- 
torical, may have been some portion of the Clementines,” or 





Jewish Christians who used Matthew in the original, soon became an 
unimportant sect. It is hardly possible that they had among them 
trained copyists equal to those in the Greek book-markets. Some pas- 
sages from Luke and John (not always closely translated into Hebrew), 
or marginal paraphrases and comments on the same, seem, with a little 
. other matter, to have been copied into the text of Matthew. 

14 ** Pantenus .. . issaid to have gone to the Indians; where, it is 
commonly said, he found the Gospel of Matthew, which before his arri- 
val had been delivered to some in that country, who had the knowledge 
of Christ : to whom Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, is said to have 
preached, and to have left with them that writing of Matthew in He- 
ioe letters, and that it was preserved among them to that time.” — 
Busebius, cc. Hist. 5,9, 10; Lardner’s trans. 

16 Epiphanius, Heres. 30, 14 

16 Agrippa Castor, cited by Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 4, 7. 

1% Hom. 1 on Luke, Origenis Opp. 3, 933 C (5, 87). 

18 In the Philosophumena (5, 7, p. 101, edit. Miller) is an extract 
at second hand from the Gospel of Thomas. ‘‘ He who seeks me will find 
me in children after their seventh year, for there—to become concealed 
in their fourteenth year —I am manifested.’’— Cp. Matt. 18, 5. The 
gen is also mentioned in Hom. 1 on Luke, Origenis Opp. 3, 933 C, 

1 87). 

19 Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 6, 12. 

29 In early writers a subject is sometimes presented (see Judaism, 
p- 177) by selecting disputants on either side into whose mouths the 
arguments of respective schools are put. The author of the Clementine 
Homilies and Recognitions selects Peter as the person who shall pre- 
sent true views, and Simon Magus as the opponent who is to present 


188 ALLEGED UNCANONICAL GOSPELS. [NOTE L. 


of a similar work. A Gospel of Matthias (cp. Acts 1, 26) is 
mentioned by Eusebius (Zec. Hist. 8, 25) and by the Homilies 
on Luke (1, Origen. Opp. 3, 933C). Absence of any appeal to 
it implies that it was not a history of Jesus. It must have 
been something doctrinal. 

4, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE Ecyptians.” Uncertainty as 
to whether this belongs under the first or third of the preced- 
ing heads, leads me to treat it separately. The citations from 
it suggest that it was a doctrinal homily (on Matthew 22, 
30?) exceptional in that it selects Jesus as speaker. The 
citations refer to the absence of sex in the next life, and 
the fact that while marrying and bearing of children con- 
tinue death also will continue. There may have been some 
casual reason for the title “ Gospel according to the Egyptians.” 
As no such reason, however, is apparent, I think the fol- 





false views of the subjects discussed. In another document called the 
Preaching of Peter it is also obvious that Peter is merely selected as 
spokesman. Their authors had no thought of passing off these produe- 
tions as written or uttered by that Apostle. They merely meant, by 
selecting him as spokesman, to indicate their adherence to a belief in both 
dispensations — the Jewish and Christian —as having proceeded from 
the same God. They were prompted to this, perhaps, by the fact that, 
of the two bodies opposed to this view one, the Marcionites, made great 
use of Paul’s writings, while the other, the Valentinians, used chiefly 
those of John. 

In the latter of these documents Peter is made to argue from the 
Scriptures of the New Testament (Clem. Alex. Strom. 6, 41) an appeal 
which would have been deemed needless, or even derogatory to him by 
one who was trying to palm off the work as his genuine production. 

In one portion of the work where the author appeals to Sibylla and 
Hystaspes — books regarded as prophecies addressed to heathen com- 
munities — Paul is introduced (Clem. Alex., Strom. 6, 42, 43; Opp. 
p. 761, edit. Potter) as the personage to make THIS appeal. Probably it 
would have been deemed out of place in the mouth of Peter. 

21 In the third century it is mentioned by Clem. Alex. Strom. 3, 63, 
92, 93 (cp. 45, 64) and by the Philosophumena 5,7; p. 98, ed. Miller. 
Later mentions exist in Hom. 1 on Luke (Orig. Opp. 3 933 B, ed. De la 
Rue) and Epiphan. Heres. 62,2 (Opp. 1, 514) who probably confused 
what the Philosophumena ascribes to this Gospel with what its preceding 
statement ascribes to the Mystics. (Cp. pseudo Clem. Rom. Zpist. 2, 
12; al. 5.) The quotation from it by Clement (Strom. 3, 92) speaks of a 
time ** When . . . the male with the female shall be neither male nor 
female” (cp. Matt. 22,30). This may have been the passage on which 
the Ophites are said (Philosophumena, p.:98) to have based their view of 
transmutation in the soul or its affections. That the Philosophumena 
shoul treat this work as the source of but one error accords with its 
being an almost unknown doctrinal treatise, or a translation either of 
Matthew or the four Gospels, in some manuscript or manuscripts of 
which one or two notes or interpolations had attracted attention. 


, ; 
OS ae Se ee ee eS, 


NOTE 1. ] ALLEGED UNCANONICAL GOSPELS. 189 


lowing explanation probable. A translation of Matthew,” if 
not of the four Gospels, may already have been made into 
some Egyptian dialect. In one or more manuscripts of this 
some scribe may have appended as a note, or perhaps inter- 
polated, an extract or extracts from this Homily. On this 
supposition the term Gospel according to the Egyptians would 
be natural, and would accord with the fact that Clement of 
Alexandria who quotes, does not appear to have seen the 
work. 

The foregoing includes, I believe, every uncanonical Gospel 
mentioned in the first three centuries. So far as concerns 
Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, or the Homilies on Luke,” it 
includes mentions of later date. 

When Christianity gained the upper hand, there was a mo- 
tive which did not previously exist for fabricating documents 
in the name of venerated Christians. Yet even then any 
fabricated histories of Jesus concerned themselves with his 
earlier years, not with his ministry. The authority of the 
four Gospels seems to have been so firm as to preclude other 
accounts concerning this portion of his life. 





22 The number of Jews in Egypt gives plausibility to the supposition 
that Matthew's Gospel may have been translated earlier than the others 
for some of the non-Greek-speaking communities of Jewish Christians: 

23 Inde la Rue’s edition of Origen’s Works, Vol. 3, p. 932, and in the 
edition of Lommatzsch, 5, xxviI, XXVIII, and in the edition of Jerome 
* by Vallarsius, 7, col. 245 - 248, is a letter of Jerome, which in the last- 
mentioned work is addressed to Paula and Eustochium. In all these 
it is entitled Prologue to Homilies on Luke, there attributed to Origen. 
In this letter Jerome says that a lady named Blesilla had, at a former 
date, asked him to issue in the Latin, Origen’s ‘‘ thirty-six [Vallars. 
twenty-five] books on Matthew and five others on Luke and thirty-nine 
[Vallars. thirty-two] on John,” —a request, as he said, beyond his 
strength and leisure, but, as the friends who now addressed him had 
asked only for the translation of the Homilies on Luke, he had complied. 
Quam tamen idcirco nune faciam, quia sublimiora non poscitis. 

Ina preceding portion of the letter he says that the persons whom he 
addressed had asked him to translate the [thirty-nine ??] Homilies on 
Luke of ‘‘ our Adamantius,” that is, of Origen. De la Rue and Lom- 
matzsch omit the bracketed number thirty-nine. It is doubtless an in- 
terpolation. It contradicts the statement in the same letter (a statement 
in which all texts agree) attributing to Origen but five Homilies on Luke. 
The thirty-nine Homilies on Luke however, though perhaps from an 
Alexandrine writer, were composed in Latin, and apparently between 
A. D. 325 and A.D. 350. See Underworld Mission, Note I. Didymus 
of Alexandria, mentioned by Jerome (de Vir. Illust. 109, al. 118, Opp. 2, 
col. 939, ed. Vallars., cp. Smith, Dict. of Biog. art. Didymus) cannot 
have written them ; for he*lived in Jerome’s time, half a century later 
than the author of these homilies, and, moreover, wrote in Greek. 


190 DATE WHEN JESUS WAS DEIFIED. [Nore a». 


NOTE M. 
DATE WHEN JESUS WAS DEIFIED. 


In the early part of the third century the deification of 
Jesus had, at least in some localities, considerable foothold 
among Gentile Christians, though it was rejected by all Jew- 
ish ones, and was treated by many Gentiles as a dangerous 
innovation." 

In the third quarter of the second century Justin Martyr, 
the earliest extant defender of this view, advocated it in his 
discussion with a Jew, but manifests a feeling of uncertainty 
touching it,? which he does not on other points. At a yet 
earlier date — probably about the middle of the century ?— 
he wrote an Apology addressed to a heathen emperor, in which 
he designates Jesus as the ANGEL and aposTLE * of the Supreme 
Being, basing in one case his argument_on a use of the former 
term in the Old Testament.® Throughout this somewhat 





1 See Judaism, Ch. XI. notes 56, 57, 58, 60. 

2 «But, O Trypho,’ I said, ‘his being the Christ of God is not an- 
nulled even if] am unable to show that he pre-existed asa God, son of the 
Maker of all things and was born a man.’ — Justin Martyr, Dial. 48; 
Opp. 2, 154 C. ea 

8 In the Apology (1, 46; Opp. 1, 228-230) Justin places the birth of 
Christ 150 years previously. In his Dialogue (12 ; Opp. 2, 400 C) he 
alludes to the Apology as already written. The date of either work has 
however been much discussed and differently decided by different writers. 
The war mentioned by the Jew may have been the Jewish one under ~ 
Hadrian, or that under Antoninus Pius, or may have been a non-Jewish war 
under the latter, or even under Mareus Antoninus. If the first-mentioned 
be the one referred to, then we must suppose that Justin wrote out the 
discussion long after its occurrence. Cicero’s work de Nat. Deorum was 
written thirty years after the discussion which it professes to narrate. 

4 «Our teacher — who is both son of the FATHER OF ALL THINGS and 
MAsTEr Gop and also his apostle— foretold us that these things would 
happen.” — Justin Martyr, Apol. 1, 13; Opp. 1,162 A. ‘‘These[Old 
Testament] teachings are given as proof that Jesus Christ is the Son and 
Apostle of God, having previously been his Logos, and appeared some- 
times in the guise of fire [at the burning bush] and sometimes in the 
likeness of incorporeal things.” — Apol. 1,63; Opp. 1, 262 A. ‘* We do 
homage to. .. the son... and to the host of ornER good angels 
who are his followers and like to him. . . .””— Apol. 1,6; Opp. 1, 148, 
150 C. Compare fuller quotation in Judaism, p. 470. 

5 The Jews-~‘‘having it expressly stated in the compositions of 





Nore M.] “DATE WHEN JESUS WAS DEIFIED. 191 


elaborate Apology there is not a paragraph nor even a sentence 
devoted to argument for, nor yet to a statement of, the deity 
of Jesus. With a possible exception soon to be considered, 
that doctrine is not even mentioned.® The omission cannot 
have been occasioned by Gentile repugnance, since after the 
doctrine was in existence it met less opposition from Gentile 
converts than from Jewish ones,’ and the only natural ex- 
planation of it is that the view, if held, had not yet taken 
such possession of Justin’s mind as it afterwards did. | 
The only mention of the doctrine in the Apology is ap- 
pended,*® a mention so parenthetical and brief that its omission 
would not impair connection of the sentence. 
Justin in his larger Apology would, by any reader ignorant 
of his Dialogue, be understood as meaning and affirming that 





Moses (Exod. 3, 2, 6, 14, 15), ‘The ANGEL of God spoke to Moses in a 
fiery flame, in the bush, and said: I am THE BEING, the God of Abra- 
ham and the God of Isaac and*the God of Jacob’ — affirm that it was the 
Father and Artificer of all things who spoke these words.” — Apol. 1, 63 ; 
Opp. 1, 262 A, 264B. Yetsome Jews must, notwithstanding Justin’s 
assertion, have deemed the speaker to Moses an angel. See Heb. 2,2; 
Acts 7, 53; Galat. 3,19; Josephus, Antig. 15, 5, 3. 

6 The second Apology also omits the view, but is too brief and special 
in object to have needed any allusion to it. 

7 See Judaism, Ch. XI. notes 57, 58, 60. 

8 «The Jews therefore who constantly maintain that the FATHER oF 


* ALL THINGS spoke to Moses, when the speaker was in reality the Son of 


God, who is called his ANGEL and AposTLg, are justly convicted by the 
prophetic spirit and by Christ himself, of knowing neither the Father 
nor the son. For those who say that the son is the Father are convicted 


_ of not understanding the Father and of not knowing that the FATHER OF 


ALL THINGS has a son, who being the first-born Logos of God, (also is God) 
also formerly appeared in the semblance of fire and in the image of what 
was incorporeal, to Moses and to the other prophets.” — Apol. 1,63 ; Opp. 
1, 264C D. If the words ina parenthesis be from Justin the word ‘‘and” 
should be substituted for ‘‘ also” immediately afterwards. The Greek will 
bear either translation. In this latter case Justin, who had more than 
once quoted the words spoken to Moses, ‘‘I am the God of Abraham and 
of Isaac and of Jacob” (Exod. 3, 6), may have deemed it necessary to ad- 
mit parenthetically that the term God, equally as the term angel, was 
applied to the speaker in the Old Testament. The parenthesis, however, 
may be a later insertion. Our means of determining the text of Justin 
are very scanty, and therefore have less weight in deciding the question. 
Only two manuscripts of the Apology (Smith, Dict. of Biog. art. Justin) 
are in existence. If the parenthesis stood in a different connection its 
genuineness might be less suspicious, but here it seems to contravene the 
point of Justin’s argument, which consists in keeping out of view the 
term God while laying stress on the term angel. 


192 DATE WHEN JESUS WAS DEIFIED. [NOTE M. 


Jesus was merely a pre-existent angel.? This certainly is the 
view to which he gives prominence. ‘Probably in his first 
efforts to meet objections raised against the Old Testament, 
this was his means of defence. It is equally plain that at a 
later date, when he wrote his Dialogue, he substitutes the view 
that Jesus, though called an angel, was a subordinate god.” 





9 In one place Justin affirms: ‘‘ We are followers of the onLty God, 
the Unborn, through the Son.” — Apol. 1, 14; Opp. 1, 164 B. By the 
‘Unborn God ” Justin always means the Father. He never applies this 
term toJesus. The passage implies that Justin at this date recognized 
No god save the Father. 

10 ** As to your saying that this Christ pre-existed before the ages as a 

od, . .. it appears to me not only PARADOXICAL but foolish.” — 
pho in Dial. 48 ; Opp. 2,154 B. It is noteworthy in the foregoing 
that Justin takes this method of introducing what he had not previously 
affirmed. Again, his opponent is made to say; ‘* Answer me first how 
you can show that there is another God besides the Maker of all things.” 
— Trypho in Dial. 50 ; Opp. 2,162 E. ‘*1 will endeavor to persuade 
you who understand tlie Scriptures, that there is and is said to be an- 
other god and lord BENEATH the MAKER OF ALL THINGS, one who is also 
called an angel.” — Dial. 56; Opp. 2,178 C.  ‘*If I eould not show you 
from the Scriptures that one of those three [Gen. 18, 2] is a god and is 
called an angel, . . . it might be reasonable for you to think him, as 
your whole nation thinks, the God who existed BEFORE CREATION OF 
THE WORLD.” — Dial. 56; Opp. 2,180 D E. ‘* I will endeavor to per- 
suade you that this being who is said to have appeared to Abraham, to 
Jacob, and to Moses, and is termed god, is a different one from the Gop 
WHO MADE ALL THINGS.” — Dial. 56; Opp. 2, 182 E. 

‘* Begin and explain to us how this god, who appeared to Abraham, 
and who is a SERVANT to God the MAKER OF ALL THINGS, being born of 
a virgin, became, as you have alleged, a human being, similar in suffer- 
ing to others.”” — Trypho in Dial. 57; Opp. 2,190 E A. *‘ This [being] 
called a god, who appeared to the patriarchs, is called also-angel an 
lord, so that from these lenspeltistiotel Fak may recognize him as SERVANT 
to the FATHER OF ALL THINGS.” — Dial. 58; Opp. 2,192 C D. ‘*It is 
necessary that I explain to you the words which announce how there ap- 
peared to him flying from his brother Esau this being who was angel and 
god and lord, and who appeared in the form of a man to Abraham, and 
in the form of a mortal wrestling with Jacob.” — Dial. 5s; Opp. 2, 
194 E. ‘* Bear with me, 1 said, while I show you from the book of 
Exodus how this same [being] angel and god and lord and man and mor- 
tal, who appeared to Abraham and Jacob, appeared in a flame of fire 
from a bush to, or associated with, Moses.” — Dial. 59: Opp. 2,196 C D. 
** If, O friends, it was an angel and god at the same time who appeared 
to Moses, as has been shown you by the previously written words, the 
god who spoke to Moses, will not be the MAKER OF ALL THINGS... 
but [will be] he who was shown you to have appeared to Abraham and to 
Jacob : aSERVANT to the will of the MAKER OF ALL THINGS.” — Dial. 60 ; 
Opp. 2,198 A B. The Scripture, ‘‘ by saying that an angel of the Lord 
appeared to Moses, and afterwards indicating that it was the Lord him- 








NOTE M.] DATE WHEN JESUS WAS DEIFIED. 193 


This late origin of Christ’s deification is corroborated by the 
paucity of writers in the second century who accept or even 
allude to it. With Jewish Christians (see Judaism, Ch. XI. 
notes 57, 60) it never foun! favor." Of Gentile Christians 
in the second century Routh’s first volume includes docu- 
ments and fragments from about twenty who, save perhaps 
Melito,” have nothing of Justin’s view. Among fourteen or 
fifteen other writers in the same century eleven — including 
some who deem Jesus the pre-existent Son of God and instru- 
ment of creation — ignore, contravene, or condemn his deifica- 
tion,” while four (if the Epistle to Diognetus be of this cen- 
tury) may have accepted it. These four have certain traits. 
1. No one of them (compare p. 75) uses the word Jesus or 





self who was alsoa god, points out the same [being] whom it indicates by 
many other statements as a SERVANT to the Gop OVER THE WORLD.” — 
Dial. 6; Opp. 2,200 A. ‘*I will give you another testimony... from 
the Scriptures that originally, prior to all his creations, God produced 
from himself a certain reasoning power which is called by the holy 
spirit the glory of the Lord, but sometimes son, sometimes wisdom, 
sometimes god, sometimes lord and logos, and sometimes he calls him- 
self chief commander, when appearing in form of a mortal to Joshua, 
son of Nun. For he has all these appellations because of serving 
his Father’s will and being born by the will of the Father.” — 
Dial. ti ; Opp. 2,200 A-202 B. See also ce. 68, 73, 86, 87, 113, 114, 126, 
[bis}, 127, 128 [bis], 129; Opp. 2, pp. 332 C, 246 D, 294 A B, 298 C, 376 

, 384 B, 420 D, 422 C, 424C D, 426 A BC, 428 E. It is possible 
that Justin had found difficulty in maintaining the position taken in 
his Apology, that the Being mentioned in the Old Testament was sim- 
ply an angel. He needed to account for the application to that being of 
the term God, and took this method of doing it. Compare note 25. 

1 Justin lived during intense bitterness between Jews and Gentiles. 
He hoped perhaps to commend his argument to Gentiles by giving it the 
appearance of confuting a Jew, 

12 See remarks on page 218. 

13 The Epistles attributed to Ignatius and the so-called second Epistle 
of Clement are later than the second century. In that century the deifti- 
cation of Jesus is ignored by Clement oF Rome, PoLycarP, BaRNa- 
Bas, Hermas, the Oratrio AD Gracos, and HErMIAs, in all but one 
of whom it was, if held by the writer, unlikely to be omitted. The 
MARTYRDOM OF PoLycAR? (see Judaism, p. 469) apparently disclaims 
it, while the De Monagcuia has for a title the watchword of its oppo- 
nents. 

Had the Conorratio AD Gracos regarded Jesus as a deity the view 
could not have escaped mention in its systematic and elaborate statement 
of differences in date and character between heathen and Christian views 
as to the being or beings recognized as God. Its direct statement is: 
‘© No one existed earlier than God who could give him a name, nor did 
He think it necessary to affix a name to himself, being one and ALONE, 
as He testifies through his own prophets, saying: [Is. 44, 6] ‘I was God 


194 DATE WHEN JESUS WAS DEIFIED. [NOTE M. 


Christ.4 2. Though treating the Son as the instrument of 
creation they never style him Creator. 3. Though one of 
them, Theophilus, quotes Old Testament passages in which 
the term God is applied to the being whom they deem sub- 
ordinate, yet each in his own person makes but one, if any, 
such application of it.% 

Theophilus addressed a work to his heathen friend Auto- 
lycus. He instructs him that the Supreme Being dwelt 
from eternity, having inside of him his reason or creative 
power ; that before creating the world he, without divest- 





originally, and beside me there is No oTHER.’”’ — Cohort. 21; Just. Opp. 
, 62 C. 

Irenzeus speaks of ‘‘The Church” as ‘‘receiving . . . the faith in 
one God, Father, All-Ruler, who made heaven-and earth... and in 
one Jesus Christ, the son of God and in the holy spirit which foretold 
[everything concerning Jesus].” — Cont. Heres. 1,10, 1. Elsewhere he 
says: ‘‘ We have shown . . . that the Apostles in their own person cail 
no one God except. . . the Father of our Lord.” — Cont. Heres. 5, 25, 2. 

The Clementine Homilies say : ‘‘Our Lord , . . did not proclaim 
himself God. He justly blessed him who called him Son of that God who 
perfected the beauty of the universe. ... The Father is nnborn ; the 
Son is born. The born cannot compare with the unborn or self-born.” 
— Hom. 16, 15, 16. ** Denial of him (the One God) is for a professed 
Monotheist to allege until death another God, whether [as the Gnostics ?] 
a greater, or[as those who deify Jesus?] a less.” — Hom. 3,7. The 
author (see Judaism, pp. 858-359) ascribes the introduction of such 
views to Gentiles fresh from heathenism, and affirms eternal perdition for 
professed Monotheists who until death retain such a view. 

14 Mettro also in addressing Mare Antonine substitutes (Routh, Relig. 
Sac. 1, 115) the term ** Monotheists” for ‘‘ Christians.” 

15 Theophilus once speaks (2, 22; Opp. p. 120 C) of the Logos as 
“being God.” Athenagoras applies to the Son (Supplicat. 10; Opp. . 
p. 48 A) the term God. The word ‘‘God,” if dropped out, would cause 
no break in the connection, and therefore its interpolation after the doc- 
trine became established is possible, though scarcely, I think, probable. 
The same use of the term occurs once (see note 25) in the Epistle to 
Diognetus., 

Tatian speaks (Orat. 13; Opp. p. 62, al. 153 A) of *‘the [suitor 
Deity.” If the word ‘‘ suffering” be spurious, Tatian was speaking o 
the Supreme Being. If it be genuine, he spoke of the subordinate deity. 
There is no difficulty in regarding him as having held the belief ex- 
pressed in the passage. There is, however, great difficulty in supposing 
that he, or any fellow Christians of his era who held it, would have 
CALLED ATTENTION of heathens to the fact that one whom they regarded 
as a deity had been put to death by Roman soldiers. I mistrust that, 
after Tatian became a Gnostic, some member of the Orthodox party may, 
as a criticism on his change of views, have added the word “ suffering,” 
and that in course of time it crept into the text. 


err ee oe 





NOTE M.] © DATE WHEN JESUS WAS DEIFIED. 195 


ing himself of reason, emitted his reason,’ constituting it a 
distinct being. Through this “subordinate workman” he 
created all things save man. When man was to be created 
he said, “* Let us make man.” ” 

Tatian, the disciple of Justin Martyr, became eventually a 
Gnostic. Before becoming so he wrote his Address to Greeks. 
In it he maintains the unity of the Supreme Being ™ and rep- 
resents the Logos as having received a separate existence be- 
fore the creation, the work of which devolved on him.” 





16 The term Logos was used sometimes as identical with reason, some- 
times with utterance, sometimes with fiat or executive energy. Compare 
Judaism, p. 358. 

M7 « God, having his reason dwelling within him, gave it existence 
eliminating it with his own wisdom before [creation of ] allthings. He 
had this reason [or Logos] as a SUBORDINATE WORKMAN of the things 
produced by him, and he made all things through him.” — Theophilus, 
ad Autol. 2, 10; Opp. pp. 78-80 BC. 

**God, by saying [Gen. 1, 26] ‘Zet us make man in our image and 
similitude,’ indicates first the dignity of man ; for God having made all 
{other] things by his Logos and having esteemed all [other] things a side 
matter, deems only what was immortal [namely] the making of man a 
work worthy of [his own] hands.” — Ad Autol. 2, 18; Opp. 108 C D. 
Compare Sibyl. Orac. 8, 265, cited on p. 177. Theophilus had previously 
explained (1, 4) that the universe was made on man’s account. 

**For before anything came into existence [God] had this [Logos] as a 
counsellor, it being HIS OWN MIND AND THOUGHTFULNESS. But, when 


. God wished to make what he had resolved, he brought into existence 


outside of himself this Logos, the first-born of the whole creation, he 
himself " being [thereby] emptied of reason.” — dd Autol. 2, 22; 
. 118 B. 
**Our God did not originate in time, being alone without beginning, 
a he = rt being the beginning of all things.” — Orat. ad Grecos, 4; 
. p. 18 C. 

“«The Master of all things being himself the substance of the universe 
was, before the creation, ALONE. .. . With him existed through his rea- 
soning power the Reason [o7 Logos] which was in him. By the will of 
his simple (or uncompounded) nature, the Logos sprung forth. But the 
Logos (or utterance of God), not going forth void (compare Is. 55, 11), 
becomes the first-born of the Father. This Logos we know as the begin- 
ning of the world.” — Orat. 5; Opp. 22 A-24B. Tatian tries, not very 
intelligibly, to explain the process by which the Logos was separated 
from the Father. 

19 “The Logos proceeding from the [reasoning] power of the Father 
did not render the Being who begot him void of reason, even as ] speak 
and you hear, but I who address you do not, by the transmission of 
my utterance (Logos), become void of (Logos) speech. . . . The Logos, 
being begotten in the beginning, begot in turn our world.” — Orat. 5; 
Opp. p. 26 BC. ‘The heavenly Logos, a spirit produced from the 
Father, and the (Logos) utterance of his rational power, in imitation of 
the Father who begot, him, made man an image of immortality.” — 
Orat. 7; Opp. p. 30 B ¢. 


16 DATE WHEN JESUS WAS DEIFIED. [Nor M. 


Athenagoras is very emphatic in affirming but one Supreme 
Being,” and in alleging the impossibility of two or more un- 
originated Gods, yet he treats the Son as identical with the 
Logos, and as the instrument’of creation.” 

The Epistle to Diognetus is by a person of literary culture 
who penned it at a time when, or under circumstances such, 
that he did not feel himself personally in danger. He writes 
with a self-confidence which states, rather than argues, and 
assumes that his reader Diognetus, who seems to have been 
an inquirer concerning monotheism, would scarcely need argu- 
ment in order to share his conclusions. The document is 
marked by none of the almost tediously diffuse statement and 





2) ‘God, the Maker of the world, was from the beginning One and 
Alone.” — Supplicat. (or Legat.) 8 ; Opp. p. 42 C, edit. Otto. Compare 4, 
Opp. 20 B. ‘*God is unoriginated, incapable of suffering and invisible, 
and therefore not compounded of parts.” — Supplicat. 3; Opp. p. 38 D. — 

21 ** See as follows, that God, the Creator of this universe, was from 
the beginning [but] One, so that you may have the argument for our faith. 
If from the beginning there were two or more Gods, either they were in 
one and the same place or each in his own place. In one and the same 
place they could not be, not even if the Gods were similar, but because 
[also] unoriginated beings are not similar. Originated things [may be 
similar to the pattern [after which they are made], but the unoriginate 
are dissimilar, being neither [produced from] any one nor after [the pat- 
tern of] any one.” — Supplicat. 8; Opp. pp. 86-38 BC. “ But the 
Maker of the world is above created things, supervising the world by his 
foresight for these [created things]. What place will there be for the. 
other god or the remaining ones? not in the world, for it belongs to an- 
other ; nor beyond the world, since above it is God the Maker of the 
world.” — Supplicat. 8; Opp. pp. 38-40 D A. 

22 <*It has been sufficiently shown by me that we are not atheists, be- 
lieving as we do in one God, unborn, eternal, invisible, incapable of suf- 
fering, incomprehensible, not to be contained [by any locality], appre- 
hended by the mind only and the reason, surrounded by light and splen- 
dor and spirit and power beyond narration, by whom the universe was 
produced through his Logos and [by whom] it has been adorned and is 

reserved. 

‘ ‘We understand also [that there is] a Son of God, and let no onedeem 
it ridiculous in me [to say] that God has ason. For we do not think 
concerning God the Father, or concerning his son, after the fashion of 
your poets’ fables, who represent the gods as in no wise better than men, 
But the Son of God isthe utterance (Logos) of the Father as regards his 
thought and energy. For according to him and through him all things 
were brought into being, the Father and the Son being [in their purposes] 
one ; the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, through 
the oneness and efficacy of [their] spirit. The Son of God [being] the in- 
telligence and the utterance (Logos) of the Father.” — Supplicat. 10; 
Opp. pp. 44 B- 46 C. 









3 FRA 
AS Baa 
vy. ‘\ 


xs » cigaey | i 


argument which we find in Justin. : - 
to multiply short affirmations, as if thereby to emphasize his 
views, or to overpower his reader. ‘This is less striking in his 
portraiture of the Supreme Being * than in his account of the 
Christians,* and of the embassy sent to man.” 

His self-confidence, due to personal peculiarities, could 
hardly have found safe public utterance under Marc Anto- 
nine.” He either wrote later or not for immediate publica- 





NOTE M. | DATE WHEN JESUS 








23 ** For God the Master and Artificer of the universe, who made all 
things and arranged them in order, not only was a friend of man but 
very patient. This indeed He always is and will be, excellent and good 
and without anger and truthful; and He only is good. Meditating a 
great and unuttered conception which he communicated to his only 

on, so long as he continued to keep secret his wise counsel he seemed to 
disregard and neglect us, but when he revealed and made manifest 
through his beloved Son the things prepared from the beginning, he 
enabled us at [one and] the same time to partake of his benetits and to 
have insight and be workers.” — Epistle to Diognetus, 8; Justin, 
Opp. 2, 490 C D. 

2% Epistle to Diognetus, cc. 4-6 ; Justin, Opp. 2, 476-482. 

%5 **God who is truly the All-ruler, the All-creator and Invisible, him- 
self placed the Truth from heaven and his holy and uncomprehended 
Logos in men and established it in their hearts, not as any one might 
think probable, by sending to men some servant or angel, or any ruler of 
those who supervise earthly affairs, or one of those entrusted with the 
arrangement of things in heaven, but the artifiver and artisan of the uni- 
verse, THROUGH WHOM He created the heavens, By wHom he restricted 


the sea to its own bounds, whose secret [orders] all constituents [of the 


universe] faithfully obey, from whom they have received [injunctions] to 
guard the measure of each day’s course, whom the moon obeys when he 
commands her to appear by night, whom the stars obey, following the 
course of the moon, by whom ALL THINGS are arranged and limited, and 
to whom they are subordinated: the heavens and the things in the 
heavens ; the earth and the things in the earth ; the sea and the things in 
the sea; the fire, the air, the abyss, the things on high, those in the 
depths and the things between. This being He sent tothem. Did he 
send him, as some man might think, to tyrannize, to cause fear and to 
terrify? By no means, but in mildness and gentleness. As aking send- 
ing a royal son He sent him ; He sent himas a god ; He sent him as to 
men ; as purposing to save He sent him; as desiring to persuade, not to 
compel, for there is no violence with God. He sent as if inviting, not 
prosecuting. He sent as one who loves, not who judges. . . . For who 
among men, before his coming, understood what God is !” — Epistle to 
Diognetus, 7, 8; Justin, Opp. 2, 484-488. 
_ % The miscreants who controlled Mare Antonine endeavored to divert 
attention from their own misrule by attributing its results to anger of 
the gods against Christians. Some law against these latter — dating 
By ly from Trajan’s time — existed under Antoninus Pius (Justin, 4 pol. 
7) but was held in check probably by the good sense of that emperor. 


198 DATE WHEN JESUS WAS DEIFIED. [NOTE M. 


tion.” His letter may have been to a friend who would make 
only such use of it as could not imperil its author. Publica- 
tion may have taken place in a subsequent generation when 
the writer's name was unknown, a supposition favored by the 
fact that the letter is anonymous. 

In examining the date when Jesus was deified three views 
should be distinguished which, though blended in some minds, 
were not so in all. 

1. A portion of Christians contented themselves with pre- 
senting their Master as a superangelic being older than crea- 
tion. This served their purpose in two ways. It over- 
matched the claim of heathenism for superior antiquity,” and 
it avoided conceptions of the Master’s human body which, 
owing to a mistake of Christians,” were already ridiculed. 

2. Others identified this superangelic being with the Logos, 
aiming perhaps at one or both of the following results. They 
thereby proclaimed as their teacher one, the faith in whom 





His successor, the present one, issued an edict, or edicts (Routh, Relig. 
Sac. 1, p. 116, lines 1, 2, 12) in accordance with which Christians if 
Roman citizens were (Routh, 1, 313) beheaded and if not were thrown to 
wild beasts. In Asia they seem, as in the case of Polycarp, to have been 
burned. Atrocities practicable in portions of Europe may in the monothe- 
istic countries of western Asia have been mitigated because of public 
opinion. It is noteworthy that a friendly thrust of the executioner’s 
sword terminated Polycarp’s existence (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16) be- 
fore the fire touched him. 5 

Christians claimed that they should like other men be punished only 
for crime. The answer to this may be inferred from the following : 
‘*The centurion . . . punished for a long time in prison, Ptolemy .. . 
on his confessing himself a Christian. Finally when the man was brought 
to the city prefect he was in like manner asked only this, whether he 
were a Christian. . . . When the prefect commanded him to be led to 
execution a certain Lucius, himself a Christian, . . . said to the pre- 
fect, ‘For what cause... do you punish this man?’.. . and he, 
answering, said to Lucius, ‘You seem to be such as he’; and when 
Lucius said, ‘Most certainly,’ [the prefect] commanded him also to be 
led to execution.” —Justin Martyr, Apol. 2, 2; Opp. 1, 286 D E, ~ 
288 A B. 

*7 The writer’s use of olxovousxds (c. ¢) for a household arrangement 
between God and Jesus favors a somewhat later date. 

28 Barnabas, Ireneus, and Hermas hold this view with no mention of 
the Logos. 

29 Heathenism in the days of Mare Antonine was no longer confronted 
by Judaism but by an apparently recent religion. It laid therefore extra 
stress on antiquity. The emperor lent himself (see Judaism, Ce. II. 
note 41, XII. note 7) to foster this foolish argument. 

80 See p. 40. 


" 
- 
Me 





Nore M.] § DATE WHEN JESUS WAS DEIFIED. 199 


could not be judicially condemned * without condemning the 
sect to which the emperor belonged. They may also have 


_ hoped for added dignity by using the language of a sect which 


numbered the emperor among its followers. 

3. Yet others proclaimed their Master a subordinate god, 
prompted somewhat though less perhaps by a desire of addi- 
tionally dignifying him than by a wish to free the Supreme 
Being from representations in the Old Testament, which a 
heathen community regarded as degrading.” 

Justin in his Apology lays stress on the position that the 
Old Testament in passages which the Jews interpreted as 
speaking of God spoke merely of an angel. This position 
was difficult or impossible to maintain in the face of passa- 
ges which apply to this same being the term God. He prob- 
ably found his first position untenable, and in his Dialogue 
substitutes the view — modified from one held by the Gnostics 
— that this being was a subordinate god. 

A summary of the case stands as follows. The writings of 
Justin Martyr render probable that in his mind the belief 
took root after publication of his first Apology and before 
writing the Dialogue, that is, after a. p. 150, a view corrobo- 
rated by his evident mistrust of his own arguments in the 
latter work.™ 

Of other Christian writings in the second century five- 
sixths ignore, antagonize, or condemn Justin’s view; those 


‘ who teach it —all of them later than Justin —do not 


agree in their expositions of it, while their disuse of the 
words Jesus and Christ indicates that they wrote under 
some then existing bias. Had the doctrine originated ear- 
lier than the assigned date it could not have been so ignored, 
and there would have been more unanimity among its sup- 
porters.” 





81 Justin, while identifying Jesus with a pre-existent being called the 
Logos, did not refrain from using the terms Jesus and Christ. 

82 See p. 200 and especially the text prefixed to note 36. 

33 So late as in the fourth century the Homilies on Luke (Hom. 3) 
treat it as an open question whether the being who spoke to Abraham 
Were an angel or God. 

4 Justin in his deification of Jesus evidently felt that he was not tread- 
ing on sure ground. See note 2. 

85 Among those acquainted with common interpretations of the intro- 
duction to John’s Gospel, especially if they have access only to the com- 
mon English version of it, the question may arise whether John held any 


200 DATE WHEN JESUS WAS DEIFIED. [NOTE m. 


One or two additional considerations, though not bearing 
on the date when Jesus was deified, may not be without inter- 
est. Justin repeatedly (see p. 52, note 7), and oftener than 
other writers, designates the Father as the Master-God. He 
also applies to Jesus the term sERVANT. He lived in a city 
the headquarters of slaveholding, and expected to be read by 
its inhabitants. How far this influenced his interpretation of 
the Old Testament may be a question. In such a community 
menial offices were thought very derogatory to the deity. 
Tertullian says concerning God shutting the door of the Ark 
after Noah, and touching certain other non-menial but con- 
descending acts: “These things would not be credible con- 
cerning the Son of God unless written; perhaps they would 
not be credible concerning the Father, even if they were 
written.” * | | 

It will further be noticed that the extracts treat merely of 
two gods. Deification of the Spirit as a distinct and third 
person took place in the third century, being taught in that 
century by two writers only. One of these, as elsewhere re- 
marked (see Judaism, p. 357), treats the majority of Chris- 
tians who had been horrified at the introduction of a second 
god, as exclaiming, You are ALREADY introducing a third one! 





view analogous to that of Justin and other writers. The tenor of John’s 
writings is against such interpretation of his words. To the common 
English reader his meaning will be plainer by substituting for Logos the 
word Providence, the only English term analogous in triple meaning to 
the Greek one. It denotes God, his agency, and some of his attributes, 
but prominently supervision, rather than, as Logos, reason, fiat (Ps. 
33, 6),creative energy, or planning. Compare on this subject Judaism, - 
p-. 358, note 59. Verse 3 admits two translations, which, for the reader’s 
convenience, are put into parallel columns. 

‘*In the beginning Providence existed and Providence was with God 
and Providence [compare on p. 195, Theophilus, ad Autol. 2, 22] was 
God [himself]. It was in the beginning with God. 

Through it all things came into Through it all things came to 
being, and without it not one pass, and without it not one occur- 
created thing came into existence. _ rence took place. 

And Providence (God’s interposition) took a human form and dwelt 
among us, . . . full of favor and of truth.” — John 1, 1-3, 14. 

' The use of ‘‘ he” and ‘‘him”’ in the Greek depends on the termina- 
tion of the word referred to, and would be equally necessary in referring 
to the word ofxos, house, as in referring to an intelligent being. 

If rdvra in verse 3 were preceded by the article 7d, there would be more 
probability that John spoke of creation. As the text stands there is 
equal or greater probability that he was not thinking of it. Compare in 
Lactantius, 7, 1s, the use of yevoudvcis as quoted from Hermes. 

8 Tertullian, adv. Prax. 16, p. 649 A, edit. Rigault. 


ae 


ee 


NOTE N.] FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF MATTHEW. 201 


The fabrication which the Christians circulated and quoted 
as a work of Hermes, indicates the views which many of them 
wished to spread. Lactantius says: ‘“ Hermes, in that book 
which is inscribed The Perfect (or Final) Discourse, uses these 
words: ‘The Lord and Maker of all things, whom we are 
accustomed to call God, when He made a sxEconp god;... 
when He made this one, first and only, and sole, [and when] 
he [the created being] appeared to him excellent and most 
filled with all good things, He consecrated him and loved him 
exceedingly as his peculiar child.’” * 





NOTE N. 
FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF MATTHEW. 


Some Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew omitted the first two 
chapters. The narrative which they contain, moreover, is not 
easy to reconcile with that in the first two chapters of Luke,? 
and the name Jesus Christ here used without the article in- 
tervening (see pp. 60, 61) is not to be found in the undoubted 
portions of Matthew. This raises the question whether they 


- were prefixed to Matthew's Gospel by himself or by another. 


The question has been argued by more than one writer.?. The 
chief object of the present Note is to bring out by its typog- 
raphy what these chapters profess to be. The typography 
commonly used fails to give it due prominence. 





87 Lactantius, Div. Inst. 4,6. Cp. Judaism, Ch. XI., note 54. 

1 The two chapters prefixed to Matthew represent that when Jesus 
was born wise men from the East caine to Jerusalem (2, 1, 2); that 
they communicated with Herod before they had seen the child, and 
were warned by God that they should not communicate with him again. 
Herod sought the child’s destruction, which was prevented by its parents 
taking it to Egypt, where they remained until Herod’s death, after 
which they did not go (2, 22) to their former home, but turned aside into 
Galilee, and dwelt in a city called Nazareth. 

According to Luke Nazareth was the home of Joseph and Mary. 
They were merely visiting (Luke 2,4, 5) in Bethlehem. After the child’s 
birth they went openly into the temple and afterwards returned (2, 39) 
**to their own city Nazareth.” 

2 See Norton’s Genwineness, 1, App. p. liii; abridged edit. p. 431. 


202 


FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF MATTHEW. 


[NOTE N. 


BOOK OF 


THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST, 


SON OF DAVID, SON OF ABRAHAM. 


Abraham was the father of Isaac ; 
and Isaac of Jacob; and Jacob of 
Judah and his brothers ; and Judah 
was the father of Pharez and Zarah, 
by Tamar; and Pharez was the 
father of Hezron ; and Hezron of 
Aram; and Aram of Aminadab; 
and Aminadab of Nashon; and 
Nashon of Salmon; and Salmon 
was the father of Boaz, by Rahab ; 
and Boaz was the father of Obed, 
by Ruth ; and Obed was the father 
_ of Jesse ; and Jesse of David the 

king. 

And David the king was the 
father of Solomon, by the wife of 
Uriah ; and Solomon was the father 
of Rehoboam; and Rehoboam of 
Abiah; and Abiah of Asa; and 
Asa of Jehoshaphat ; and Jehosha- 
phat of Jehoram ; and Jehoram of 
Uzziah ; and Uzziah of Jotham ; 
and Jotham of Ahaz; and Ahaz of 
Hezekiah ; and Hezekiah of Ma- 


nasseh ; and Manasseh of Amon ; 
and Amon of Josiah ; and Josiah 
was the father of Jeconiah and his 
brothers, at the time of the removal 
to Babylon. 

And after the removal to Baby- 
lon, Jeconiah was the father of 
Salathiel ; and Salathiel of Zerub- 
babel ; and Zerubbabel of Abiud ; 
and Abiud of Eliakim ; and Eliakim 
of Azor ; and Azor of Zadok ; and 
Zadok of Achim; and Achim of. 
Eliud; and Eliud of Eleazar ; and 
Eleazar of Matthan ; and Matthan 
of Jacob ; and Jacob was the father 
of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of 
whom was born Jesus, who is called 
Christ. 

So all the generations from Abra- 
ham to David were fourteen gener- 
ations ; from David till the removal 
to Babylon, fourteen generations ; 
and from the removal to Babylon 
until Christ, fourteen generations. 





Now THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST took place as fol- 
lows: While his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before 
they lived together, she was found to be with child by the 


Holy Spirit. 


Joseph, her husband, being a just man and not 


wishing to expose her to shame, purposed to put: her away pri- 


vately. 


While he was considering this, lo an angel of the 


Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Do not fear to take 
Mary as thy wife [etc., to the close of Ch. 2}. 





NOTE 0. ] PUBLICATION OF MARK’S GOSPEL. 203 


| NOTE O. 
PUBLICATION OF MARK’S GOSPEL. 


CurisTIAN tradition says that Mark at Rome committed to 

writing what Peter had taught concerning the history of Jesus, 
and that afterwards, going to Alexandria, he published his 
Gospel in that city.1 Two circumstances harmonize sutti- 
ciently with this statement to increase somewhat its proba- 
bility. 
1. The Gospel of Mark terminates,” as already said, rather 
abruptly with verse 8 of chapter 16. This accords at least 
with the supposition of an interruption to his labors by the 
death of Peter or by the persecution of the Christians. 

2. Three or four years later, when Vespasian was at Alex- 
andria, aiming at imperial power, some of his adherents who 
had already perhaps tried to make him the subject of proph- 





1 Irenzeus says: “‘ After the death of these (Peter and Paul), Mark, 
the disciple and INTERPRETER of Peter, delivered to us in writing the 
things that had been preached by Peter.” — Cont. Heres. 3, 1, 1; Opp. 
1, 423. Papias states: ‘‘The elder said this; ‘ Mark being the INTER- 
PRETER of Peter, wrote WHAT HE REMEMBERED.’ ” — Papias quoted by 
Eusebius, cc. Hist. 3,39. Jerome says: ‘‘ Mark . . . wrote ashort 
. Gospel according to what he had heard related by Peter . . . taking the 
Gospel which he himself_had composed, he went to Egypt, and at Alex- 
andria founded a church of great note.” — De Vir. Illust. 8; Opp. 2, 
841 — 843, edit. Vallarsius ; Lardner’s trans. 

2 The subsequent verses, 9-20 (quoted in Ch. XI. note 10), ‘are not 
found in the Vatican manuscript. In the Codex Stephani 7 after the 
eighth verse, it is said, The following also is extant, which words precede 
a short conclusion undoubtedly spurious, and then come the words, This 
also is extant ; after which follow the twelve verses in question. In more 
than forty other manuscripts they are accompanied by various remarks, 
to the effect ‘that they were wanting in some, but found in the ancient 
copies’ ; ‘that they were in many’ copies’ ; ‘that they had been con- 
sidered spurious, and were wanting in most copies’ ; ‘ that they were not 
in the more accurate copies’ ; ahd on the other hand, ‘that they were 
eel in accurate copies.’ [The Sinaitic MS. discovered by Tischen- 

orf also omits the passage. ] 

“Inthe other manuscripts of the Gospels beside those mentioned, the 
passage in question is found without remark ; and likewise in all the an- 
cient versions, with the exception of the Armenian, in the manuscripts 
of which, as appears, it is either omitted or marked as of doubtful credit, 
a of the copy of an Arabic version preserved in the Vatican 

i a | 

a: The nineteenth verse is distinctly quoted by Ireneus as from the 
Gospel of Mark ; and the passage in question appears to have been recog- 


204 THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA. [nore p, 


ecy,® undertook yet further to strengthen confidence in him 
by a couple of fictitious miracles, borrowed evidently from 
our Gospel narratives, or from Christian teaching concerning 
Christ. John’s Gospel was not yet written. One of these 
miracles,* that of restoring sight. after spitting on the eyes, is” 
not mentioned in Matthew nor in Luke. It is found only in 
Mark, and gives plausibility to the surmise that the recent 
publication of Mark’s Gospel may have caused discussion and 
suggested to Vespasian’s adherents the character of the mira- 
cle which they attempted. | 





NOTE P. 
THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA, 


Any baptisms mentioned in the New Testament were, as 
already stated,’ into the name of Jesus. In the second cen- 





nized as genuine by some other fathers.* But no part of it is quoted by 
Origen. According to Eusebius, almost all the copies of Mark’s Gospel, 
including the most accurate, ended with what is now the eighth verse. 
Gregory of Nyssa states, that the passage was not found in the more 
accurate copies ; and Jerome says, that it was but in few, being wantin 
in almost all the Greek manuscripts.” — Norton, Genuineness, aleidged 
edit. pp. 444-445 ; unabridged edit. Vol. 1, App. LXx - LXXII. 

3 «Through the WHOLE EAst an ancient and uninterrupted opinion had 
gained thorough currency, as contained in the fates, that at that time 
PERSONS from Judea should obtain rule. That, as afterwards appeared 
from the event, was a prediction concerning a Roman commander.” — 
Suetonius, Vespas. 4. The commander referred to is Vespasian. The 

lural form ‘‘ persons” may have been due to an association of Titus with 
espasian as nominally joint emperors. 

4 ‘One of the common people of Alexandria, known to have a disease 
in his eyes, embraced the knees of the emperor, importuning with groans 
a remedy for his blindness. . . . Another who was diseased in the hand 
[compare Mark 3, 1-5; Matt. 12, 10-13; Luke 6,6-10] . . . entreated 
that he might be pressed by the foot and sole of Cesar. Vespasian at 
first ridiculed the request. . . . Vespasian executed what was required 
of him. Immediately the.hand was restored to its functions and the 
light of day shone again to the blind.” — Tacitus, Hist. 4, 31; Bohn’s 
trans. According to Suetonius (Vespas. 7) Vespasian ANOINTED THE 
MAN’S EYES WITH SPITTLE. Compare Mark 8, 23, 

1 See Ch. IV. note 22. 





* “Not, however, by Clement of Rome, nor Justin, who are cited as quot- 
ing it in the editions of the New Testament by Griesbach and Scholz, nor, I 
think, by Clement of Alexandria, who is also adduced.” — Norton, Ibid. 


SSS ee oe 





ee ae ee, Um eee 


NOTE P. | THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA. 205 


. tury — apparently before the deification of Jesus? and a full 


half-century before any deification of the Spirit ?— we find a 
baptismal formula “in the name of the Father of the universe 
and Master-God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the 
Holy Spirit.” 4 

The change of formula claims attention ; and this is equally 
the case whether the baptismal precept (quoted on p. 49) be 
genuine or interpolated. In the former case we have the dif- 
ficult problem of explaining non-attention to it in Apostolic 
times, while in the latter we need to explain the cause, or 
causes, which produced a change. Part of the change can be 
explained without difficulty. While Christians made converts 
only among Jews or monotheists, they felt no need of baptiz- 
ing them into a belief in God, since they already believed in 
him. When Christianity was carried among heathens its con- 
verts were asked to confess belief in God as well as in Jesus. 

Confession of belief in the Spirit admits more question as to 
its origin. The most probable explanation, though not Justin 
Martyr's,’ is that some Christians of the second century PRIDED 
themselves on their alleged miraculous powers. Jesus had 
cautioned his Apostles against similar pride,® yet in the spu- 





2 The baptismal formula occurs in Justin’s first Apology. On his views 
concerning Jesus at this date, see in preceding note pp. 191-193. 
8 No writers of the second century, and only two of the third century, 


- namely, Tertullian and Origen, deify the Spirit as a person. Even at the 


close of the third century such deification must have made but little prog- 
ress. The document attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, and first quoted 
by Lactantius, cannot be earlier than the second half of the third cen- 
tury. It mentions the formation of a second God, but in such a way as 
to exclude a thirdone. See Lactantius, Div. Inst. 4, 6, cited at close of 
Note M. Also Div. Inst. 7, 1*, cited at close of Note K. 

In the second century the author of the Clementine Homilies, as will be 
seen on p. 194, condemns severely those who deified any being save the 
Creator, but alludes to none who introduced more than one such additional. 

4 Justin Martyr, 4pol. 1, 61 ; Opp. 1, 258 A, edit. Otto. 

5 Justin, after explaining (Apol. 1, 61; Opp. 1, 258 - 260 D, ed. Otto) 
that baptism was into the name of the ‘‘ Father of the universe and Mas- 
ter-God,” who had, and needed, no name, and into the name of Jesus 
Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate, adds (c. 61, 260 E): ‘into the 
name of the Holy Spirit [omitted by Ireneus, 4, 23, 2], which through the 

hets PREDICTED ALL THINGS CONCERNING JEsus.” By belief in the 

irit Justin (cp. Ireneus, on p. 194) meant chiefly belief in its predic- 

tions concerning Jesus which he regarded the spirit of God (the prophetic 

or holy spirit) as having uttered in the Old Testament. On these and on 
predictions in general see pp. 17, 37, 38, 72 ; cp. Judaism, pp. 345, 346. 

6 ** Rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you ; but rather re- 
joice, because your names are written in heaven.” — Luke 10, 20. 


206 THE MISSION OF JESUS. [NOTE Q; 


rious addition to Mark’s Gospel he is made apparently to en- 
courage it.” This disposition of Christians * renders probable 
that baptism into the Spirit meant baptism into the posses- 
sion of miraculous powers. } 

If we assume that the baptismal precept in Matthew (28, 
19) is genuine, any explanation of its non-observance in Apos- 
tolic times is difficult and unsatisfactory. 





NOTE Q. 
THE MISSION OF JESUS. 
§ 1. [ts main Object. 


In the Preface Christianity is treated as a revelation, The 
writer supposes that this revelation was intended to give man- 
kind a deeper assurance as to the existence and character of 
God and as to his relations with men, thus strengthening 
human sense of responsibility, encouraging human effort, and 
imparting to human existence the sunshine of hope and trust. 

He is not unaware that large bodies of Christians hold other 
views as to the chief purpose of Jesus. Those who attach 
high importance to Church authority claim that his main ob- 
ject was to form an ecclesiastical organization with delegated 
powers.’ In Protestant communities several active denomina- 
tions hold that his main object was to make a sacrifice.” _ 





7 «*These signs shall accompany believers : In my name shall they cast 
out demons ; they shall speak new languages ; they shall take up ser- 
pents ; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they 
shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” — Mark 16, 17, iz. 
Compare Acts of Pilate, § 15, text of Paris A. 

§ Justin tells Trypho: ‘‘ From our works [of practical-monotheism] 
and from the dvvduews, MIRACULOUS POWER, consequent on them, all can 
understand that, this [Jesus] is the new Law and the new Covenant.” — 
Just. Mart. Dial. 11. Cp. (on p. 3) Apol. 2,6. Tertullian, with inju- 
dicious vehemence, dares the heathens to test the divinity of their gods, 
He is willing to stake the Christian exorcist’s life on the result if he does 
not compel the fancied divinity to confess itself a mere demon. See Ter- 
tullian, Apol. 27, in Underworld Mission, p. 78 ; 3d ed. 74, 75. 

1 This view, transmitted from the Middle Ages, is unlikely to hold its 
own in communities which lay stress on individual religious responsibil- 
ity. 

2 Prominent teachers of this theology allege that its chief doctrine, or 





§ 2.] - IMPEDIMENTS TO ITS: INFLUENCE. 207 


§ 2. Some Impediments to its Influence. 


At and before the Christian era many Jews expected a di- 
vine interposition in the form of a temporal ruler clothed with 
miraculous powers, who should establish order upon earth and 
facilitate, if not establish, a reign of holiness.? Not a few 
Christians retained this anticipation, and as their Master had 





doctrines, cannot be found in the Gospels. Archbishop Whately 
says: ‘‘The Gospel which Jesus himself preached was not the same 
thing with the Gospel which he sent forth his Apostles to preach after 
his resurrection. . . . How, indeed, could our Lord, during his abode on 
earth, preach fully . . . his meritorious sacrifice as an atonement for 
sin? ... Our Lord’s discourses, therefore, while on earth, though they 
teach, of course, the truth, do not teach, nor could have been meant to 
teach, the WHOLE truth, as afterwards revealed to his disciples. They 
could not, indeed, even consistently with truth, have contained the main 
part of what the Apostles preached. .. . 

- ‘*Our chief source, therefore, of instruction, as to the doctrines of the 
Gospel, must be in the apostolic epistles.” — Difficulties in the Writings 
of St. Paul, pp. 65 - 67, 74. 

Mac t says : ‘“‘The chief doctrines of the gospel are more ex- 
pressly asserted and more fully explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
ace yy any other of the inspired writings.” — The Apostolic Epistles, 

ol. 5, p. 1. ; 

Those who hold the foregoing view would probably, by calling them- 
selves ‘‘ Epistolary” instead of ‘‘ Evangelical” Christians, convey to 
oy a more correct idea of the ground on which they plant them- 
Selves. 

“This view as commonly held ignores the universe save the sandspeck 
on which we live. Were a human being to step outside of the solar 
system, not to any distant part of the universe, but to the nearest fixed 
star, he could not with the best of human telescopes discern the earth. 
Yet what is called Evangelical theology teaches, that on this sandspeck, 
and nowhere else in the universe, the Supreme Being found a need of 
an put to death, or for having a constituent part of himself put to 
death — whatever either expression may mean — before he could forgive 
his infant children who dwell there. Among the myriad millions of homes 
where his other children are trained, no such need arose. 


8 «  . . Then shall the mightiest kingdom 
Of the Immortal King appear among men, 
And a Sacred Prince shall come to hold the sceptre of the whole 


earth 
To all ages of the time which approaches.” 
Sibyl. Orac. 3, 47=50, 


**Then God will send a King from the East, 
Who shall cause the whole earth to cease from wicked war, 
A killing some, and administering binding oaths to others. 
or shall he do these things by his own counsels, 
But by obeying the excellent rules of the Great God.” 
Sibyl. Orac. 3, 652-656, 


208 THE MISSION OF JESUS. [NOTE Q, 


not fulfilled it they expected his reappearance to establish such 
a reign.4 | | 

Of course a temporal ruler, guided by God and clothed with 
power to crush injustice and op»ression, might in the world’s 
history more than once have demolished whatever obstructed 
open allegiance to God or the improvement consequent 
thereon. Probably such interposition would have diminished 
human sense of responsibility and human efforts, nor would 
mankind have learned the lessons which experience has taught 
them. It is plain at least that divine interposition has ad- 
dressed only the individual conscience. Wherever correct 
views of God have depended for maintenance. on supporters 
too féw, too disunited or unfaithful, these views have been 
overpowered and civilization has retrograded or been driven 
out. This happened to Greek civilization—the child of 
monotheism — at Rome ° and subsequently in Asia and North 
Egypt, as also to its offshoot the Saracenic culture in Spain.® 
A modern era witnessed but onesmall locality where reasonable 
freedom was allowed to the utterance of Christian truth and 
to the advocacy of human improvement.’ 





* See Norton, Statement of Reasons, Appendix, Note B. Compare 
Judaism, pp. 235, 236. 

5 See Judaism, pp. 11-14, 369, 387, 388. 

6 The Saracenic views of God must have been less defective than the 
misnamed Christian ones by which in Spain they were supplanted. Com- 
pare Judaism, p. 370. : 

7 «*To Europe and mankind, in the mean time, the success of the mari- 
time provinces was of the greatest importance. . . . Resistance to those 
who were controlling religious opinions by fire and sword, and trampling 
upon constitutional privileges, had been successfully made. 

** An asylum was opened for all those, of whatever country, who fled 
from persecution ; from persecution of whatever kind. The benefit thus 
accruing to mankind cannot now be properly estimated, for we cannot 
now feel what it is to have no refuge and no means of resistance, while 
men are ready to punish us for our opinions, and are making themselves 
inquisitors of our conduct. It is known to have been one of the severest 
miseries of the later Romans, that they could not escape from their gov- 
ernment ; that the world belonged to their emperors. — 

‘*It was in the Low Countries that the defenders of civil and religious 
liberty found shelter. It was there that they could state their com- 
plaints, publish what they conceived to be the truth, and maintain and 
exercise the privileges of free inquiry. These were the countries to which 
Locke retired, and where William the Third was formed.” — Smyth, 
Lectures on Mod. Hist., Lect. XII: Vol. 1, pp. 319-320. Even in the 
Low Countries the execution at a somewhat earlier date of Barneveldt and 
the imprisonment of Grotius indicate how slow men were in learning te 
respect the rights of others. 





§ 2.] IMPEDIMENTS TO ITS INFLUENCE. 209 


At present the number of Christian countries which more 
or less clearly acknowledge the rights of conscience, renders 
very improbable that these rights can again be totally abol- 
ished. Yet many impediments affect their free exercise. 

_ In hereditary monarchies the character of the king and his 
surrounders may hinder growth. 

Monarchical system excessively carried out may, even under 
a good sovereign, impede progress. The author has elsewhere 
quoted (Judaism, p. 367) the remark of an old philanthropist 
living under one of the most liberal monarchies of continental 
Europe ; that those in authority were sure to oppose efforts for 
_ improving society unless they themselves had been previously 
consulted and their approbation obtained. 

Privileged classes, whether ecclesiastical or secular, may 
hinder not only growth of correct views touching God, but their 
application to human welfare. Even if the sentiment of such 
class be against existing evils there will be hesitation to com- 
mence innovations, whose limit cannot be foreseen. 

In communities not qualified for self-government, though 
living under popular institutions, thoughtful citizens, to say 
nothing of the merely timid, will sometimes oppose a com- 
mendable innovation through fear of other changes which they 
might prove unable to hinder. . 

Again: War, though under exceptional circumstances a 
duty, is, even under conscientious commanders,’ a severe in- 
terruption to religious development and human improvement. 
European standing armies absorb young men by hundreds of 
thousands, substituting camp influences for those of home. 

False representations of Christianity by its advocates repel 
even yet not a few right-minded persons. | 

In most European monarchies the Church is more or less 
managed by the government. Many who identify Christian- 
ity with this organization imagine that the renunciation of 





8 Archenholtz, amid incidents, some of which might be attributed 
sok to generous sentiment, narrates the following : ‘‘ The French, under 

eneral Mercieres, captured the Westphalian city of Bielefeld, celebrated 
for its linen manufacture, on which occasion the bleaching stations were 
eng though the General opposed these excesses. His conscience, 
however, told him that he could have acted more energetically. There- 
fore, in the year 1790, thirty-three years after the occurrence, he sent 
from Bayonne to the magistrate of Bielefeld a considerable sum of money, 
with the request to apportion it among the sufferers yet living, or if they 
were dead to appropriate the amount in some other way useful to the 
city.” — Geschichte des Siebenjihrigen Krieges, 1, pp. 339, 340. 


210 THE MISSION OF JESUS. [NOTE Q. 


Christianity is requisite to republican institutions. A genera- 
tion or two may pass before this error can be unlearned. 

In our own country its marvellously rapid development 
keeps multitudes in a state of anticipation and speculation un- 
favorable to thoughts of personal improvement. 

Yet in spite of impediments those views of God for which 
Christianity furnished needed evidence have been taking 
deeper hold among mankind, even among many who have im- 
bibed them without knowing the extent of their indebtedness 
to Christianity. Since the rights of conscience have been more 
acknowledged, the application of religious truth has been 
more easy and human progress more rapid. Many know but 
little of what was tolerated within a century. | 

In France, prior to the Revolution of 1793, the punishment 
of ‘‘ Wheeling” ? even for moderate offences had been rendered 
so atrocious that it would seem prompted by a conclave of 
demons." _ The Revolution abolished it and similar barbarities 
in most French-speaking countries. 

In Germany this mode of punishment” was retained in a 


a. 
+> 


9 This must not be confounded with the view of those who wish merely 
to dissolve connection between Church and State, a step from which some 
liberalists shrink. Compare in Judaism, note on RP 369, 370. 

10 In English allusions to this punishment ‘‘ Wheeling” is almost 
universally mistranslated ‘‘ breaking on the wheel.” Mrs. Hemans has 
been misled by such phraseology into representing the wife of Rudolph 
Von der Wart (Hemans’s Poetical Works, 2, p. 101) as remaining by her 
husband during the hours when he was ON THE WHEEL. 

The punishment of Wheeling was usually executed by fastening the 
subject to the ground and breaking his limbs either with a common 
wagon-wheel, or with one made for the purpose. The wheel seen by the 
writer at Freiburg, Switzerland, was much smaller than a wagon-wheel ; 
was provided on one side with handles, and on the other side, for per- 
haps a fourth or a third of its circumference, with a sharpened iron or 
steel rim to facilitate breaking the limbs. His guide had seen a man 
executed with it in 1823. 

11 Jn France, though the term WHEELING was retained, the punish- 
ment was inflicted with an iron club, the victim being stretched in an 
iron frame. The directions to the executioner, which the author read 
many years ago, are here given from memory. These were: to begin 
with the left arm, commencing at the wrist ; then with the left leg; 
then, after some delay, with the right leg, and then with the right arm. 
He was to mangle each wrist, elbow, ankle, and knee-joint with two 
blows, and the intervening portion of each limb with a specified number, 
not less, if memory serve me, than five or six. The executioner was fur- 
ther directed not to desist because of cries from the condemned person. 

12 In Germany, as I was informed by a Berlin lawyer, two forms of 
‘condemnation were recognized : wheeling FROM ABOVE DOWNWARDS, and 





Ve a 


oe (Tai 


ee ee 





§ 2.] IMPEDIMENTS TO ITS INFLUENCE. 211 


less brutal form so late, at least, as a. p. 1841, when a man 
was “wheeled to death in Prussia,” ® at a spot southwest of 
Koenigsberg on the sea-coast. 

In the United States burning to death as a LEGAL punish- 


_ ment must have been retained in a state so far northward as 


New Jersey until the middle of the last century,“ while in 
some of the more Southern States this mode of punishment 
was in force so late at least as the second quarter of the pres- 
ent one.” 





FROM BELOW UPWARDS. In the former case the first blow fell on the 
chest, and was expected to kill the victim, the limbs being afterwards 
broken for form’s sake ; in the latter case the limbs were first broken and 
the coup de grace, or finishing stroke, given afterwards, if at all. 

13 The following is extracted from p. 87 of a German newspaper fur- 
nished me by the Burgomeister of Frauenburg. The title of the 
paper does not appear on the slip sent me. ‘‘ Braunsberg, July 7, 1841. 

his morning at half past six the death penalty of wheeling from below 
[upwards] was executed on the robber and murderer Rudolph Kiihnapfel, 
. . . in the vicinity of the village Nartz, near Frauenburg, in presence of 
a great multitude.” The bracketed word is supplied from a different 
er: I remember an extract from yet another paper which stated that 

iihnapfel was ten minutes in dying. 1 suppose that his crime may have 
been treated as constructive parricide. The Bishop of Ermeland whom 
he murdered may have been regarded as his spiritual father. I was told 
that an attempt to murder the king could be punished in the same way, 
perhaps on the ground that he was the political father of his people, yet 
in bla eases the punishment may have been adjudged without 
stretching the meaning of language. 

14 The author has learned from one of his neighbors that when the 
uncle of that neighbor's father was killed in New Jersey by a slave, the 
slave was legally executed by burning. The father was born in 1750. 
Whether the execution took place before or after that date is unknown to 
his informant. 

16 W. C. Bryant informed me that the execution in South Carolina 
of a negro woman by burning in the year 1820, is mentioned by Stroud 
in his Slave Laws. He omitted to mention the pase 

_ An intelligent colored man now resident in Meadville, and born he 
says in 1826 or 1827, tells the author that during his childhood his grand- 
mother witnessed a similar execution of a man near Fayetteville, N. C. 
He remembers his grandmother’s statement that the man (a white one 
he thinks) petitioned to have oil put upon the fagots. 

The author himself distinctly recollects reading in early life the news- 
ate account of a similar execution in SouthCarolina, an account recol- 
ected also by one of his older relatives. The newspaper said that the 
driest of fagots had been procured in order to diminish the pain of execu- 
tion. As a Charleston lady , with whom he conversed in 1839 at Geneva in 
Switzerland, was unaware of the execution, and as he has had a Charles- 
ton paper searched ineffectually for its record, he supposes it to have oc- 
curred in the interior of the State. Lest, moreover, the accuracy of his 


212 THE MISSION OF JESUS. [NoTE Q. 


_ The late Henry Colman of Massachusetts told me that he 
had in early life seen human beings carried down State Street, 
Boston, to be branded and to have their ears slit.!® 

The exigencies of war may sometimes be thought to palliate 
harsh treatment ; but corporal punishment in the peace estab- 
lishment of Frederic the Second equalled that of the most 
barbarous nations.” 

If we consider that more than eighteen centuries ago Tibe- 
rius, educated partly by the monotheistic influences of Asia 
Minor, abolished corporal punishment,’® it seems as if the 
world had received a discouraging back-set. But it is undoubt- 
edly further advanced than in his time, for his views would 





memory should be suspected, he will state some of the circumstances 
which corroborate it. He remembers conversing on the subject with his 
father, who expressed his opinion that it was in some States the specified 
form of punishment for a slave who killed his master. Also in one of 
his own letters to his father, dated Jan. 12,1841, is the following : ‘‘ In 
Prussia the punishment of the Wheel is still in use for persons who have 
killed near relations. . . . In Greece | see from the papers that the tor- 
ture still exists. Whether we have so far got rid of such abominations 
in our own country as to have formally abolished the law in South Caro- 
lina ordaining burning to death as the punishment of a slave who kills 
his master, I do not know. I remember but one instance of such an 
execution, but that was one too many.” | 

My father’s opinion that the form of punishment was specified by law, 
cannot have been true of South Carolina. The late W. C. Bryant pro- 
cured for me information taken from Stroud’s Slave Laws, that in certain 
cases the method of punishment was left to the discretion of three magis- 
trates. 

16 J learn from Judge Hoar that ‘‘ branding and cropping the ears 
were abolished as punishments in Massachusetts, in 1805 ; whipping in 
1826.” 

17 “«If the soldier committed a [military ?] crime he had to run the 
gantlet through a lane of two hundred, or rather to walk it. Six times 
was the least, thirty-six the highest number of these painful perambula- 
tions. The last-mentioned punishment was called ‘ FoR LIFE AND DEATH,’ 
and was divided into three days, and on the last day the wrong-doer’s cof- 
fin was brought with him on the parade.” — Archenholtz, Kleine Hist. 
Schriften, 1, pp. 27, 28. To prevent any acceleration of pace by the con- 
demned man, a soldier with reversed musket under his arm preceded him 
so that he could not quicken his pace without running on the bayonet. 
This punishment his comrades must sometimes have been compelled to 
execute on one from whom they had received kindness and whom they 
would gladly have spared. 

‘* The highest crime was breach of subordination. Even for the slight- 
est faults of this kind [a soldier] was confronted by running the gantlet, 
or by the bullet. Whoever with weapon in hand carried his fault to 
practical acts was wheeled alive.’ — bid. p. 28. 

18 See Tac. An, 4, 6, quoted in Judaism, p. 506. 








As 


NOTE R.] THE MINISTRY. 213 
now find a general sympathy which they then, in Europe at 
least, failed to receive. We must remember, however, that 
the existence of mankind on the earth has probably little 
more than begun. One cycle of the earth’s motion requires 
more than a thousand centuries.® There must be stellar 
eycles for which a million centuries would be but a fraction of 
the required time. The hand which arranged these move- 
ments will probably permit a few of them to be studied before 
human existence shall cease on earth. The lesson learned in 
eighteen centuries will at some future day seem a brief one. 

The Pagan nations of our own time have as yet come in 
contact chiefly with the worst traits of Christian communities. 
They have seen wars” by Christians for selfish ends, and 
have not found models of virtue in the crews of ships visiting 
their shores. Patience will be requisite that evil lessons may 
be unlearned, and that Christianity may appear a religion of 
virtue and of hope. 





NOTE R. 


THE MINISTRY. 


- In the first Christian congregations the office of teaching 


was not restricted to any one individual. Several shared ‘in 





19 “¢The perihelion . . . of the earth’s orbit accomplishes its revolution 

in one hundred and eleven thousand years.” — Mitchell, Planetary and 
Stellar Worlds, p. 177. 
_ 20 Our own country during a century of independent existence has 
waged but two foreign wars. One of these would not have occurred save 
for a privileged class no longer existing, who wished to extend the area 
of that institution, Slavery, on which their privileges were based. 

_1 “He sent to Ephesus, and called the ELDERS of the church.” — 
Acts 20,17. ‘‘Take heed. .. to all the flock over the which the Holy 
Spirit hath made you émoxdrovs, BISHOPS [i. e. overseers].” — Acts 20, 
28. The word overseers in the common version is the same which is else- 
where translated bishops. ‘‘ For this cause left I thee in Crete, that 
thou shouldest . . . ordain ELDERS in every city. ... For a BISHOP 
must be blameless.” — Titus 1,5, 7. ‘‘ Paul... to all the consecrated 
in Philippi with the bishops and deacons.” — Philip.1,1. ‘‘If aman 
desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” —1 Tim. 3, 1. 
** Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued.”—1 Tim. 3, s. 

It will be noticed that in the last two instances the two classes of offi- 


214 THE MINISTRY. [Nore R. 


it. This plan was attended by some difficulties, to avoid 
which the custom was introduced of having but one teacher 
in each congregation. The latter plan has prevailed in most 
Protestant denominations, and has been so nearly universal that 
Christianity and the ministry have in the majority of minds 
become identified. Many persons would be mentally unable 
to dissociate the two, and the value of Christianity is esti- 
mated by them according to the worth of its supposed repre- 
sentatives and interpreters. 

The Christian ministry has undoubtedly done excellent ser- 
vice, and been of importance to the religious progress of man- 
kind.? It is at present, however, confronted by the following 
obstacle. In proportion as mankind become attentive to their 
moral and religious improvement, it becomes more and more 
impossible for any one human being to meet the wants of five 
hundred others.2 Those whom he addresses are, if thoughtful 





cers recognized in a single society are bishops and deacons, the former of 
whom are in preceding quotations identified with elders. 

At a later date Jerome says: ‘‘ Among the ancients [i. e. the earliest 
Christians] bishops and presbyters were the same since the former name 
[that is, ceceacrt indicates the office, [while] the latter designates the 
age [of the incumbents].” — Zpist. 69 ad Oceonum. Opp. 1, col. 415 A, 
edit. Vallars. Again: ‘‘ Therefore a presbyter is the same as a bishop, 
and before by prompting of the Devil rivalries took place in religious 
matters and people said : I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas,. 
the assemblies were governed by mutual agreement of the elders. But 
after each one thought those whom he had baptized to be his own [dis- 
_ ciples], not Christ's, it was determined in the whole world that one se- 
lected from the elders should be placed above the others, to whom the 
whole care of the assembly should pertain, and [thus that] the seeds of 
division should be removed.” — Comment. ad Tit. 1,7: Opp. 7, Part. 1. 
col. 694, 695, edit. Vallars. 

2 The above remark must not be understood of the ministry while, or 
in so far as, its discourses were in an unknown tongue. The writer re- 
members listening to a lecture in which was quoted a regal admonition 
to the Anglican clergy, telling them to dispense with laziness and write 
their sermons in Latin. He has not had opportunity to hunt up this ad- 
monition, but thinks that it was issued by Charles II. 

The literary folly which prompted such directions existed much later 
in European institutions of learning. Firmness equally as good sense 
may have been requisite in Dr. George Campbell when telling his 
pupils that he knew no reason why he should give himself more trouble 
in order to render his lectures less intelligible. ‘*I should think it un- 

ardonable to sacrifice the profit of the students to the parade of learn- 
ing ; or to waste more time in composing, to no otherend I may say, but 
to render the composition less useful.” — Lectures on Systemat. Theol., 
near close of Lecture 1. 

8 The above-mentioned difficulty may be illustrated by supposing that 





NOTE R.] THE MINISTRY. 215 


for their own improvement, growing in a variety of directions, 
and need aid of very different kinds in order to facilitate their 
progress.* Even the same individual may within a brief 
period go through experience of different kinds and need aid 
in the subject of his or her thoughts rather than to have them 
diverted to something else. | 





in mental education a teacher were required to instruct pupils in Mathe- 
matics and Metaphysics, Astronomy and Architecture, Surgery and Civil 
Engineering, History and Hygiene, Jurisprudence, Ancient Languages, 
Natural History, and other branches of modern study. Could any one 
expect a satisfactory result ? 

Whoever studies the moral and religious wants of life will find them 
diversified. A business man, witnessing the various avenues for dishon- 
esty and the disguises which screen it, will deem firmness of condem- 
nation requisite to uphold business rectitude in the community, or to 
guard his own mind against indifference. 

One placed so as to notice the need of encouragement and kind speech 
may see most call for attention to these and for illustration of the manner 
in which they can best be given. 

A person brought up under erroneous views of religion, and who has 
suffered much from such views, will highly esteem the teachings which 
dispel error. 

ne engaged in study of the Scriptures will desire the suggestions or 
information that assist comprehension of them. 

Those engaged in benevolent work see constant opportunities of good 
to be done ; of children to be rescued from vice or suffering, and of ma- 
ture exon to be aided while struggling to keep the right path. They 
a or teachings which may guide their efforts or call others to their 
ai 

Some, disheartened amid daily duties and distractions, feel the need of 
raising their thoughts tothe Source of strength, and of finding in com- 
munion with the Father of their spirits serenity and new strength to en- 
counter harassing cares. They need to be called away from daily occu- 
pations rather than to have them more vividly presented. 

Blended, often at least, with the foregoing is a dissatisfaction due to 
incorrect views of life. Persons look on its avocations as interruptions 
rather than as aids to self-development. To this class correct views of 
life would be an inestimable boon. 

Some have had questionings as to whether Jesus were or were not 
authorized to make a revelation, and to them the question may be one of 
painful importance. The evidence which they need must be of that kind 
which they are most competent to appreciate. 

Others, aside perhaps from questions about the authorization of Jesus, 
are striving to look beyond the term of human existence here and to catch 
some glimpses of a future one. Considerations which may give them 
confidence will prove of great value. 

Some are occupied in a contest with social evils. They have had 
friends or relatives carried to ruin, and are more intent on combating the 
evils of this life than on thoughts of a future one. They need in many 
cases wise counsel to prevent feeling from overriding judgment. 


216 THE MINISTRY. ° [NOTE R. 


Of course many ministers could by methodical study of 
their congregations meet wants which now go unsupplied. 
Were a minister to provide a list of his parish, and to append 
opposite each name what he deemed the chief wants of that 
individual ; were he also, by observation, thought, and conver- 
sation, to correct his own judgments and alter his memoran- 
dum accordingly, he would have sketched out before him an 
approximate map of his work. By such effort he would meet 
the wants of his people far more nearly than if his pulpit 
themes were taken from the last question mooted in theological 
and secular journals. ; | 

Still the difficulty cannot be ignored that only a person 

gifted with more than average observation and reflection, and 
with more than average capacity of conveying his ideas to 
others, can in a thoughtful congregation hope to meet even a 
majority of its wants. The question, therefore, arises whether 
the present plan of meeting such wants can be supplemented 
or improved. 
_ Suppose in a small society a select library ° of religious 
and moral literature, with clear-headed discussions on the 
various duties of a human being to himself and his fellows, 
and let us suppose a portion of time set apart when the con- 
gregation should meet for silent perusal of what is best 
adapted. to each one’s wants. An Index should be provided 
to topics treated in the library. Prearrangement in pews of 
books suited to the wants of occupants would promote the 
quiet craved by devotion but scarcely attainable if each mem- 
ber visit the book-shelves in person.® | 





5 A suitable library ought of course to contain not merely the subjects 
mentioned in the preceding note, but many others not there suggested. 
For study of the Scriptures there should be translations, commentaries, 
concordances, Bible dictionaries, and other critical aids. In selecting 
translations it would be well to have such as were made on different 
plans. The rendering best suited to a scholar is by no means always 
that most fitted for the average reader. 

Fiction on moral topics, though not to be excluded from sucha library, 
should be admitted with the utmost caution. Miss Sedgwick’s Live and 
Let Live treats one class of human duties more successfully than could be 
hoped for in most cases from the pulpit. But this is more than can be — 
said for many works of fiction even when written with moral intent. 

6 In the absence of printed Indexes some one might be employed to 
prepare a special Index for each library, or a dozen societies might con- 
jointly employ some skilled person to make such a work. Printed’ In- 
dexes would, however, soon come into existence if their want were gener- 
ally felt. In them there should be marks to distinguish brief statements 
from copious articles. 


—— a 


NOTE R. | - THE MINISTRY. 217 


The time devoted to silent reading should not preclude 
public devotional exercises, nor yet public instruction, which, 
in the absence of a minister, might be supervised by one or 
more members of the congregation.” 

A chief risk with such a library would be the introduction 
of sensational works, dignified or not by the title of religious. 
A similar risk exists in the pulpit, but can there less readily 
than in a library escape attention from thoughtful members of 
the congregation. Much would depend on the judgment, at- 
tention, and earnest religious feeling of those by whom any 
such experiment were tried. A number of congregations, by 
communicating to each other the result of their experience, 
might eliminate mistakes and suggest improvements. 

A different plan, free from some difficulties attending the 
foregoing, would be to establish as a custom, that the minister 
should on alternate Sundays, or oftener, instead of a discourse 
by himself read extracts from other writers on some moral or 
religious topic, accompanied, when desirable, with comments 
by himself. The congregation would thus get the subject 
presented by different minds, and the minister would have 
more leisure to prepare his own discourses. 

Much could be culled from secular literature which would 
conduce to religious and moral improvement; which would 
tend to elevate human aims, quicken human affections, stimu- 

-late effort, nerve to endurance, strengthen courage, inspire 
patience, give vigor to conscience, awaken benevolence, nerve 
to fortitude, animate good purposes, and illustrate dimly-per- 

f ceived truths. Pleasantries should of course be avoided, or 
anything likely to interfere with reverent and devout feeling. 

Were a minister to insert a blank leaf at the close of each 
volume in his library and, while reading, note thereon any 
page or subject of interest, he could, if his library were a good 
one, by glancing over his memoranda, find in a few minutes 


what would edify his hearers. 


A thoughtful layman with a good library could, by similar 
notes, often aid his pastor, or, in his absence, furnish for Sun- 
day instruction what might prove more valuable than many a 
sermon. 





7 Of course those best qualified to select hymns may not always be the 
ones best qualified to lead the singing. Those best qualified to decide on 
a discourse, or a series of extracts for public reading, may not be best 
ea for reading aloud, and may need to intrust this duty to an- 
other. 


ADDENDA. 


Page 61, note.— The question may claim examination 
whether the scribe who added a conclusion (21, 23% 24, 25) 
to John’s gospel, can be author of its proem (1, 1-18), which 
includes the use (1, 17), of Christ as a name, and the tech- 


nical use of Logos (1, 1, 14) not elsewhere found in the 
Evangelist. 


Page 183, note 1. — A pupil of Mosheim reasserts essen- 
tially the same error: “In these times [of the emperor 
Hadrian| and perhaps somewhat earlier ones, we may date 
the origin of those spurious writings which gradually ap- 
peared among the Christians in increasing number under the 
names of the most noted and excellent men, especially of 
those of the founders of Christianity.” Schroeckh, Kirchen- 
geschichte, 2, pp. 398, 399. 

The lately recovered ‘‘ Teaching of the [twelve ?] Apostles” 
—cited from, without naming it, by Clement of Alexandria, 
Strom. 1, 20 (§ 100) — is no instance of this, but-simply an 
intended summary of New Testament teaching, with no 
thought by its author of ascribing its compilation to any 
apostle or apostles. The word ‘‘twelve ” is omitted from the 
title by Eusebius (Hee. Hist. 3, 25) and by other ancient 
writers, and is probably an interpolation. 


Page 193, note 12. — Melito’s Apology contravenes (Routh, 
1, p. 118, lines 22-24) the deification of Jesus. Anastasius, 
however, ascribes to him a work on Christ's Incarnation, 
which Eusebius, an earlier and safer authority, omits (ce. 
Hist. 4, 25) from the list of his works. If it be from Melito, 
and if Anastasius have not blended his own views into his 
quotation, it would indicate (Routh, 1, 121, line 16) a 
deification of the Master. 

In a former edition reference was inadvertently made to 
Melito’s work ‘‘ God embodied,” which had for a subject not 
the deity of Christ, but, as we learn from Origen ( Opp. 2, 25, 
ed. dela Rue; 4, 49, ed. Lom.), the corporeal existence of God. 


Page 211, note 14.—In Charlestown, Mass., John Cod- 
man was poisoned by his three slaves, of whom Phillis was 
in 1749 burned in Cambridge, while Phebe, after turning 
State’s evidence, was transported, and Mark was hung. . 

A narrative of the foregoing will, I am informed, be found 
in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. 
12, note on p. 166. 


», ae 


ca 9 Mor hen 5 — x 
SD Fe PT eae 
ht pe ar len Un 
kom s te. : 


@ 














. 





: CAMBRIDGE: — 
"SOHN WILSON AND SON. 
Gnibersity Press. 

1887. 


Ee FON 
eae 


is i 




















. ‘ 
= 
ae . , oe a 
rN 
% 
er * v eres 
Z i 
SAE S 
noe 
| 
‘ 
S 
‘ 
4 
ae, j 








PREFATORY NOTE. 





In 1856 the writer of these lines procured through 
F. W. Christern a collation of the Greek manuscript 
of the Acts of Pilate, which Thilo in his Codex Apo- 
eryphus has entitled Paris D. This collation was made 
by Fr. Duebner, editor of classics, and bears internal 
evidence of having been done with care and fidelity 
by an expert. The readings of the manuscript are often 
given incorrectly by Thilo, whom Tischendorf has fol- 
lowed in his “ Evangelia Apocrypha,” Leipsic, 1853 ; 
2d ed. 1876. 

Though the transcript of said Codex will only have 
a value for scholars, yet it seems but fair to those 
engaged in this kind of study that the result of the 
collation should be rendered accessible. 

Emendations of the text in brackets, when not by 
Thilo, are, with one exception, by Mr. Duebner or 
Prof. E. Abbot. In the notes T. stands for Thilo, 
D. for Duebner, A. for Abbot, and H. for the present 
writer. ' 


iv PREFATORY NOTE. 


The orthography is intended to be a transcript from 
Paris D, including its errors. 

The division into paragraphs is my own. The 
largest type is intended to represent what originally 
belonged to the document; the medium-sized type to 
represent interpolations of the second and third cen- 
turies. The smallest type represents the interpolations 
after the establishment of Christianity. On the first 
two of these classifications, however, compare Indirect 
Testimony, p. 107. | 

Dots have been inserted where the manuscript had 
evidently omitted something; and dashes have in 
some cases been inserted where a duplicate wording 
appeared, as in the use of OeoaeBis for “Iovdaios, on 
which see Judaism, p. 842, and on pp. 462, 463, foot- 
note 4. 

Words with an asterisk appended exist only in an 
abbreviated form in the Codex. 

The numbering of sections inserted in brackets may 
aid the reader in comparing the Greek with a transla- 
tion on pp. 107-142 of Indirect Testimony. 

The proof-sheets have been read by Prof. E. Abbot, 
whose care and competency are well known. 


F. HUIDEKOPER. 
MEADVILLE, Pa., August, 1881. 





ACTS OF PILATE. 





AIHTHSIS TEPI TOY TIMIOY MASCOTS TOY KYPIOY ‘HMON 
KAI SOTHPOS ‘HMON "IHDOY XPIZTOY KAI IMEPI THE 
‘“ATIAD ’ATTOT “ANAZSTAZEQS, ZTYTTPAPEIZA IAPA ‘IOT- 
-AAIOT “ENNAIA ’ONOMATI, ‘HN METHNETKEN ’EK TH 
_ ‘EBPAIKHS TAQTTHS *EIZ ‘PQOMAIAH AIAAEKTON NIKO- 
. AHMOS TOMAPXHE ‘PQMAIOZ. 


_ Mera 7d xaradvOjvar rhv Bacirelay rdv ‘EBpalwy, terpaxoclwy xpbyvwv 
mapadpayotvrwv [rapadpaydorvrwr), Kal vrd ri Bacidelay ‘Pwyalwy redovv- 
Tw kal Tov “EBpalwy, rod ‘Pwaiwy Baciéws Baoiiéa adrois yeporovody- 
Tos Tov TiBeptov Kaicapos torepov Ta “Pwuaika oximrpa diérovros, év TO 
éxrwxacdexdrw érec THs Baci\elas avrod Baciiéa xetporovicavros év TH ‘Tov- 
Sala “Hpwdny, rov vidv ‘Hpwdov, rod mplv ra viwia droxrelvavrés év By- 
Oreeu, kal rov Iliddrov év ‘Tepoveadhu exovros iyyeudvas Tod “Avva kal rod 
Kaiba rhy dpxtepwotvav éxévrwv rots [77s] ‘lepovoadyu, 


Nixodynpos tomdpyns ‘Pwpaios “Iovdalov [Iovdaior} 
mpockarerduwevos “Evvaia ovoyati, éfntnce aouyypd- 
wracOat Ta KaTa& Tors Kapols “Ava kal Kaidda 
mpaxGévta év ‘Iepoveandi tept tod Xpictov: 6 87 Kal 
, ti le a \ al f \ ® 
mownoas 0 Iovdaios cal td Nixodnum mapadods, ovTos 
avis amo ris “EBpaixhs ovyypadis pernveyxe radra 
> \ ¢ - \ , ” \ \ na e s 
ets THV “Paopaixny Siddextov. “Eye 5é Ta THs toTopias 
ef , 
OUTMS,. 


6 ACTS OF PILATE, [§ 2 


n a A a \ 

[$1] Tod xupiov jyav Incot Xpictov worda Kai pe- 

/ \ b] / @ 4 > a“ 1 5 / > / 
yara kal éEalora Oavpata ev TH “Iovdaia épyacapeévou, 

‘ \ a , 2% ne / € , 
Kat dua todto POovnbévtos vo Tav “EBpaiwv, jyepovev- 

> ¢ / ” / > / 
ovtos eis ‘IepocdAvpa tov IIindtov, apyvepatevovtav é 
tov te "Avva kal tod Kaidda, irOov éx trav ‘Iovdaiwv 
a €-s A. \ 
mpos Tovs avTovs apxvepets o Iovdas, Aevi, NepOanreip, 
x 
"AnréEavdpos, Yvpos Kat ardor ToAXrol AéyovTes KaTa 
tov Xpictod, ods Kal amréoTeiAay of ToLOUTOL apxveEpeEts | 
>] a wn \ A / id / WwW \ > 
evTety TavTa Kal TO IIiiat@m nyemoves oF Kat amred- 
Oovres eirov pds avTov: Sti avOpwiros TepuTatet ev TH 

, 4 / ” > \ f \ / 

Tove TavtTn Tatépa éywv 'Iwond eyopwevov Kal pnTépa 

\ a 
Mapiav, dvopater dé abtov Bacidéa Kal viov Geov: Kal 
> ] ~ x ? / \ \ \ A a 
Tovéaios Sv avatpéres Tas ypadas, Kal KaTadver T 
caBBara. 

"Hpaétncev otv 6 ayepov 6 TTivdtos pabeiv €& av- 
TOV, KaTa Tiva TpoTov KaTadver Ta oaBBata. Kar 
atexplOnoav otto. Aéywv [Aéyovtes|* “Ore Tos aaGe- 
veis iatpever ev caBBdt@. Aéyer o Tinadtos: Ei tovs 
aabeveis wtryets ovet, ovdey KaKov Trovet. Aéyouow 

> A ? A > 7s \ > / \ x ‘ 
avT@: Ei xadas évipyes tas tatpeias, pixpov av hv To 

/ 4 an 
Kakov+ payeia 5€ yp@mevos troved TavTas Kal Tovs dal- 
povas éywy tap éavt@. Aéyer 0 IIiNdtos: To iarpev- 
ew appwotov diaBordrKov épyov ovK eat, aAXA yYapl- 
> a a ipl 
cpa Hv éx Oeod. Eimrov oi “EBpaior: Aecopeba tis 
x , , x , 2 , > 
peyarnorntos [ueyadecoTnTos|? cov petakadrecacbat av- 

\ e x / > a 
TOV, WS av yvwpions aKxplBas, Strep Néyouev. [§ 2.] éxBa- 

\ e 
Awv odv Hyeuov o TIivatos T6 pavdnrLov Frou rd paxeddrov 

> fe) / a a] n 
avtov Sédwxev évl trav timnperav avTov, “‘PayaaB dvd- 

EA a / 4 a 
Hatt, HYyouv Tod Kovpaoupos [Ta Kovpcopt] avToV, Eyov 





1 Deinde dAAa xdpioua jy éx cov, » tam ancipiti atque obscuro ductu, ut o esse 
possit, et dv legi. — D. : 
2 MeyadnornTos, i.e. meyaderdTnTOS, non meyaAdrynTos, quod male impressum, — D. 





§ 3.] ACTS OF PILATE. T 


a a > a \ 
ato: "“AmedOe cai SeiEov todto To Inaod, Kai eireé 
n a \ \ a 
avta* IIidaros 0 iyyepov Kade oe pos avtov €dOeiv. 
° nw t e € / \ id \ ‘\ sf an 
Arle tolvuy o virnpeTns, Kal evpav tov Incovy 
év TH hepa Kuptaxy Tay Balwy ® xadjpyevov emt bvov, Kal év TH 659 av- 
To0 ‘EBpato. éorpdvvvoy Ta ivdria abra&v, kal mepierdrec 6 bvos éewdvw Taw 


iuartwv. Kal ldcv 6 brnpérns riv Toatryy Tiymhv Tod ‘Inood, duolws Kal 
avros xara*®4 . . . yeyovws 


~~ n e / » MEre," A a \ \ a 
MPOGEKANELTO TOUTOV, ATAWTAS ETL THS YS KAL TO TOU 
TIidtov pavdyndwov, kal éravw avtod mepitateiy avTov 
, iid Oa / 4 ‘E al \ / 
mpotperomevos.  O7rep Loovtes of ‘EBpaior kai peyddws 
1 } nro ds aryeuwova Tov IIira ) 
ayavaxtnoavtes, HAOov mpos Hyewova Tov IIinadtov, yoyyv- 
Covtes Kat avTov Tas Toca’Tns Tihs Tov "Incobv HEi- 
\ & \ > / e / > 
woe. [§ 3] Kal ovTos Tov aroctadévta vrnpéTny avepeu- 
fal e 
vicas TAS OUTws éroincev, amexpiOn oO tmnpérns ré 
yov' OTe pe atréotetAas Tpos TOV ‘Iovdaiov ’AréEavdpor, 
; rs a > / \ 
évéreryov [évétvyov] TH “Incod eicepyouévp THY TUdAHY 
fol / / ieee: ': OF \ 16 \ ‘E / 
THS Toews, KAOnpévw ml dvov. Kal eidov Tors “EBpai- 
A e A 
ous bts éotpwvov [éotpwvvvov] ev TH 0d@ TA imaTia 
QUTOV, Kal TepieTrater 0 bvos émdvw TaY ‘patiwv> Kai 
Erepot ExxoTrtov® KAddous Kal éEnpyovTo els atdvTnow 
> la) \ ” e > \ = > A e / 
avTov, Kal éxpalov: ws avva (sic) €v Tolls vpioToLs: 
e , ; 
eVAoynmEevos 0 epyowevos ev dvouaTt Kupiov. oiTwS od 
éder Kal eve roinoar: Kal otws éroinca. "AxovoayTes 
ae al \ y 4 s \ > , \ 
ot “Iovdaior tovs Aoyous TovToUs, eiTov mpos avTOV: ov 
dé “Pwpyaios ov [av], mas eyivwoKnes Ta Tapa Tov 
e 
‘“EBpaiwv reyoueva; ~ArexpiOn o bmnpérns Kal eitrev: 
é&va éx Tov ‘EBpaiwv jnpwtnca, Kal eimév pow tadta. 
& 
Eimev o Ilinatos: wai ti réyer @s avva; Eirov of 





3 Thilo dedit xuptaxy tv ‘“EBpaiwv, quod subabsurdum est, pro nitida codicis scriptura 
kuptaxy Tov Baiwv.—D. 

4 Kara * (in fine linex) yeyoviss (ut aliquid excidisse vel vitiatum esse appareat), mpoo- 
exadeito. — D, 

5 Sic, sine augm.— D. Legendum éxorrov, Augmentum adest, « duplicato. — A. 


8 ACTS OF PILATE. [$ 3. 
‘Iovdaios: cdcov tuds, Kvpte. 
> 3, ae 2 e a 4 ¢ €¢ 9 
émrel Omoroyettar [omoroyeite], OTL OUTS EXeyov of a7ret- 
poxaxot traides tuov, Tas viv KaTnyopeite Kal AéyeTe 

\ a? “ ¢ / 5) / e¢ 3 
kata tod ‘Incov, dca réyete; “Eowrnoav of *Iov- 
Saior, Kal ovdév elyov avtimeiy [avteireiv]. 

"Ey éxelvy TQ katp@ mpocexahécaro 6 ‘Incods ods HOedev> Kal dmAdOov 
mpos abrov, kal émrolncev 1B’, wa wow pet avTod, Kat wa daroorddde [d7ro- 
oré\dy] abrovs xypiccew év marti Tw kboup 7d dvoua avrod. Hptaro be 
Kawov vouov Troijoat, ToD Katadvew TH odBBaTa Tiv Kardravow T&v "Tov- 
Saiwy, iw elxov ev TH wararg diabjxn dd Oeod cal rod Mwvodéws+ ef ris 


Lovdaios réOvnxev ev caBBarw, ovK @amrrov abrov ei wh ris éxvobons tué- 


pas. 6 6€ Inoots Bovduevos rAnpGoar Tov vomov éxeivor, év caBBary Tov 
mapdduvrov auvécpuyiev* Tob dpxiouvayuyou riw Ovyarépay (sic) rip aimo- 
pwotcav [aluoppooicar] idcaro ev caBBdrw: rdv tupddv, Tov hempdv, Kal 
Samoridvra [Sayomavra] kal vexpoy év caBBdrw adrods idcaro* év caBBdary 
tov Adfapov rerpayuepov tyepes Kal dia rodro éffrow ot *“Iovéata av- 
Tov dmoxreivat, dre awd Tore 6 Aads was HKodoUOy [jKodrodOeL] adr@ +> — dibTe 
terpanuepov cecérore [cernréra] Hyepe, Tore els POdvov bing Snes 
Onoav ?| ot *Lovdator* 


Kat as dyoiw—s ebayyedcoTys “Iwdv- 
vns*—Ta ypadoueva BiBrAta+ Tote 5é pera 


S@ avt@ (sic) avéxecro & “Incots mera Tav 
dwdexa. téTe éyepOeis Kai AaBioy A€vTiov, 


"ArrexpiOn o Iinaros+ 


Thv avaotacw Tod Aagapov: 6 “Ingois 
ExAiOn év oixia Sinwvos Tod Aempov meETA 
Tov padyTav adtov, iva ayn met’ avTov. 
avTov dvaxeymévov, HAGOev yuvy adaBa- 
orTpov pipov éxovta [éxovea], Kal Karé- 
xeev ev TH Kehadj Tov “Incod.  “Idav dé 
*Iovdas 6 wéAAwy mapaddcat (sic cod.) TOD- 
Tov; elmev év éavT@* HdvvaTO TOvTO Td 
BKUpov mpaOjvat ToAAOd, Kai SwOjvat TTw- 
xois. Elime 88 rovto, oy Sti mepi Tav 
TTwxav EnedArev [Euedev] ad’t@, adr Gre 
KAénTns Fv Kai Td yAwoodKouov elxe, Kal 
Ta BadrAdueva éBaoracgev. .Tvovs dé avrod 
tov dd6drov 6 “Inoots, eimev abtrots* H yuvn 
aitn Kaddv épyov npyaocaro [eipydcaro], 
Kai mpos TO évTadidgat pe TeTOinKev* TOUS 
TTwxXOUS MavToTe ExeTe wed’ EavTaY, Ewe 
8? ob mavtote éxeTe. Tore mopevbeis 
els tov 1B" Aeyduevos “Iovdas “loxaptd- 
tys (sic), Kai mpds Tos apxvepets elev 
Tt Oéderé por Sodvat; Kaye bulvy mapa- 
Séow aitév. Oi S& Ectncav aita Tpid- 
kovta apyvpia. “Amd tére é¢yret 6 “Iovdas 
edxepiav (sic), va ab’rov mapada. "Owias 


duéCwoev éavtév:s elta BaddAcr tdwp eis 
Tov vuTTnpa [virripa]* Kai ypkavro [Ap- 
faro] vumtew [vimrev] 6 “Ingots tois 
médas Tov pabnTav avTod, Kal elmev* 
6 OéAwv mpatos elvat, Eorar TavTwY érya= 
tos. Tore && évupe [évue] mparov tov 
*Iovda, €ita Tovs aAAovs maOynTds* Kal 
Hptaro éexpaccew TO Aevtio 6 ty Sregw~ 
opmévos. Tote elmev> wtpets KaBapoi éoTe, 
GAA’ obxi mwavtes. Ele 5& rovto dia Tov 
Tovda. hynoiv 8 madAw mpods adrods ai- 
Bis: yuwdonete Ti TeTOinka dmiv; vTd- 
Sevyna Sé5wka, tva Kxa0ws érolnca viv, 
Kal Umets TOLATES exetv bé xabapav aya 
mv Kai tameivwow eis TavTas* eb moretTe 
TavTa, pakdpiro éoré. Tore éxaOynoav 
[éxéOccav] rod écOiew To macxa* Kai Aa- 
Bav tov dprov 4. "Ingods, edxapeaTicas 
éxAage, kai édiSov Tots waOntats, Kal elmev* 
AdBere, dayere, tovroeott (sic) TO oad 
ov. Kal AaBwv Td moTHpLov, evAoyjoas 
édwkev adtois Aéywv* miere CE abTod Tav- 
Tes, TOUTOEoTLY TO alua pov TO THs Kat= 
vis SiaOjnyns. Tore Acyet adray (sic)* els 


Saran oe 


; 
7 
. 
a 





§3.] ACTS OF 
ef tpiv mapaddcer pe. Tére Exactos 7p- 
taro Aéyew* pyre yd eipe, Kvpte ; & 8 
daroxpidels elrev & éuBdas per’ Enod 
Thy xelpa ev TY TPLBAip [rpuBrALe], obTé6s 
Be mapaddce. Kai O wév vids TOU dvOpa- 
tov badyet, Kadas yeyparras wept avTov* 
oval 88 TS avOpdmw éxeivw dv od wédrw 
mapadisocbar* Kadbdv iv ait@ ei ovd« éyev- 
vi0n 6 dvOpwros Eexetvos. "AmoxpiBeis be 
6 “IovSas 6 wapadibovs adtov cime* my TL 
éyad clipe, pawBi (sic); Adyer abr@e od 
elmas. Tére avexdpynoev 6 “lovdas. Ka- 
Keivot HAGov eis Spos THY eAat@y. ele 68 
Trois ma@nrais avrod 6 “Incovs Ste of mav- 
Tes tpeis oxavdariabijcecGe ev émol ev TH 
vuxti tavtn. “AmoxpiOeis 5é 6 Ilétpos el- 
nev adt@e* el mavtes cxavdadiadycovTat 
év gol, éy ovdémote oxavdadtcOyjoopuat. 
"Edn atte 6 "Ingoids: aunv Aéyw cor ore 
év tavty TH vuKTi mpiv aAréxtwpa [aAé- 
Ktopa] dwvjcar tpets [tpis] amapyvjcy me. 
"Edy aire 6 Iérpos+ ei €AOw TOV amoba- 
veiv, ov pH ao amapyigoyat. ‘Opnoiws dé 
Kal mavtes ot wabyral cimov. Tore épxe- 
Tat wet’ adtay 6 "Inaois eis xwpiov Acyd- 
pevov TeOonuavy, mépay Tov xXEetmapovy 
[xetudppov] tev Kxaidpwv [xédpwv)], omov 
iv Kvtos [xijros]+ Kai Aéyet Tots mabynTais 
avrod* Kabicate atTod ews aTéAOw~ TpoT- 
evSouat exet, Kai mapadraBwv tov Tle- 
Tpov Kal Tovs Svo viois ZeBedaiov, jptaro 
AvreiaOar Kat adymoveiv. Tére A€yer av- 
tots 6 “Incots* mepiAvros eotiv n WuxH 
Lov éws Oavdrov: meivate de Kai ypnyo- 
pette per’ euov. Kai mpoceAPay [mpoed- 
Oav?] pixpdy, Erecev emi mpdcwmov avTod 
MpowevxXomevos Kai Aéywv* watTep pov, ei 
Suvarov éotw (sic) mapeAOérw am’ énod 7d 
ToTHplov TOVTO* MAHV odx ws eyw Oédrw, 
GAN’ ws ad. "NDOn 58 aita dyyedos an 
odpavod, évicxtwv abrév. Kai yerduevos 
év aywvia, derevécrrepov mpoonvéaro. eyé- 
veto 5é¢ 6 i8pws abrod woei OpouBoi aiua- 
Tos KataBaivoy [xataBaivwv? xataBaivov- 
tes?] émi thy yiv. Kal dvacras amd rijs 
mpocevxis épxetat mpds Tos palytdas: 
kal evpioxe: abtods Kabevdovras* Kai déw 
yet TO Métpw~ obtos (sic) odk icxvoarte 
miav Spay aypumvicar wer’ éuod: ypnyo- 
tees kai mmgexeotas [tpocevxecGc], iva 


PILATE, 9 


BH eloédOnte cis metpagudv* Td wev Tred- 
pa mpddumov, n S& capt acbevets [acbe- 
vis]. ddA 8& éx Sevrépov ameASinv mpoc- 
ynvéato Aéywv* Ildtrep mov, et ov Svvarat 
ToUTO TO moTHptov eAGety am éeuov, éav 
pH rio adte [ard], yevnOjTw 7d OéAnna 
gov. kai éA@wy evpicoxe. avTtois mad 
kabevSovtas* oav yap ot dPOadrpoi ai- 
Tav BeBapimévor [BeBapnuévor] Urvw. Kai 
adeis avtovs, ameAOwav marty mpooniéato 
€x Tpitov Tov avTov Adyov eimav, TodTe 
EpXeTae mpds TOUS Mantas Kai Aéyer av- 
Tots Kadevderar [kadevdere] Td Aowwov Kai 
avaraverOat [avaraverde]. tidy [Heder] 5& 
kai "Iovéas 6 mapadidods ... Tov TémOV, OTL 
moAAaKis cuvnAdev! .. . xaipwv mpods Tos 
apxepets. Tvovs 5& 6 “Ingots To péAAov 
tu [Ta pméAAovta] yevéo@ar (sic) Kata 7d 
opicméevov [wptopmévov], Aéyer TOV waby- 
tav (sic) abrov: “Iéod Hyyrxev 4 wpae 
Kal 6 vids Tov avOpwrov mapadidotar eis 
xXeipas auaptwrwv: eéyeiperOar [éyeipe- 
a0e], dywuev évredOev* idod Hyytxev 6 ra- 
padidovs pe. Kai Ett av’Tov AadovvTos, 
idov “Iovdas, els Tov 1B’, AaBav THY oTel- 
pay Kal éx Tay apxlepéwy Kat Papicaiwy 
umnpétas, €pxeTar éxet peta davav Kat 
Aapmddwyv Kat OTAwy, Kal RAGev pet’ ad- 
TOU Kat GxAOS TOAVS META MaxalpOV Kai 
EvAwv ard TOV apxlepéwy Kai mperBuTé- 
pwr Tod Aaovd. 6 S& mapadidovs adrov 
édwkev adrois onueiov Aéywv: dv av gi- 
Ajow, abtés éot.’ Kpatyaate aitév. “In- 
cous ovv tdws [eidas] mavtTa Ta epxdpmeva 
én avtov, elmev avtois: tiva Cnretre; 
‘AmexpiOncav atta: “Incodv rev Naga- 
paiov. Aéyet adrois 0 Incots: éyw eime. 
iorixyn [Eioryjxer] 5@ cai “lovéas 6 mapa- 
SiS0vs avrov pet adtrois. ‘OAs ovv elrev 
abrois ore éyw eit, amHAPoY eis Td drricw 
kai érecov xaual. Kat waédAw 6 "Ingots 
érnpwrnoev* tiva Cyreite; et [oi] dé el- 
mov “Incotv tov Nagwpatov, *Amexpidn 
6 “Incovs Kai eimev* OTe éyw elue bv Cy 
Telre, Kal adhere TovTovs wmdyew> iva 
mAnpwbet [wAnpwOn] & Adyos bv elev Gre 
ovs SéSwxds por, ovK amddcoa [amddrcoa] 
é& avtav ovdéva. Kal edOéws 6 ‘lovdas 
mpoceAOwv TH “Incov elmev* xatpe pauBy 
(sic), kai Katepidncey aita [airév]. ‘O 





1 Sic, Aliqua post ovv}AGev omissa sunt. —D. Post rapasvSods omissum est aro 


cf. Joh. xviii. 2, — A. 


10 


&& "Incovs elev atta: érépax [éraipe], ef’ 
@ wdape.; Tdére mpocedAOdvtes éméBadov 
Tas Xeipas emi Tov "Incovv Kai éxpdtyoav 
avtov. Tote eis Tov pabynTwov Sipwv Lle- 
Tpos éxteivas Tas xeipas, améomacev THY 
Maxatpay avTod, kai matagas Tov dovAov 
Tov apxtepéws, adiAdev [adetrAev] adTov Td 
@riov 7d defidv+ jv Sé Td Svona TO SovAM 
éxeivy MadAxw* Kai evOus 6 ‘Iyaois eimev 
avrod Tav mabynrav (sic)+ éatar [éare] Ews 
ToUTOV* Kai aduevos TOV wTiov avTov, 
idcaro avrov, ro dé Ilérpw Aéyer’ amd- 
oTpeyov cov THY Maxatpay eis Tov TéToV 


Todro dé ddov yéyovey tva rAnpwldow al ypapal Trav mpopyrar. 


ACTS OF PILATE. 


[§ 8. 


avris* mavtes ot AaBdvTes padxatpay év pa- 
xatpa amoPavovvtat* et [H?] Soxjs [Soxeis] 
ove ov S¥vayat mapaxadéoat Tov maTépa 
MoU, Kal tapagtyiayn [-cer] mor mAeiovs 7H 
dwdexa Acyewvas ayyéAwy, Tas obV TAnpw-~ 
Qaow ai ypahai Tav mpohytarv, bt. obTos 
[ovrws] det yeveoOar; "Ev éxeivy tH Opa 
elmev 6 “Ingovs Tots bxAoLs* ws emi Ay- 
oT €&jAGeTe meTa paxatpoy Kal EvAwv 
avAdaBeiv we* Kad’ Huépay mpds dywas éxa- 
OcCounv Siddoxwv év T@ iepo, Kai ovK 
éxpatyoaté pe, idov altn éotiv H wpa 
UKaV TeV écxoTeopevwrv [éoxoTicpnEevwr]. 


*Tepe- 


plas 6 mpopyrns elrev* Sette Kai é€uBddwwev EvNov els Tov dprov avroi, 


kal éxorpéywmev aitov amd yas fwHvrwr. 
oOn éree [éri]* Kipee* trav Suvvauewr, Kplvar [Kpivac? xpive] dixaca. 


kal 7rd Svoua avrod ob} mh prn- 
Za- 


xapias 6 mpopyrys elmev* rov vérov [vGrov] mov edwka els pacrivyas, Tas 
dé ovayGvas [o.aydvas) pov els pamlowara* 7d dé mpdowmdy pov ovK aré- 


otpewa ard alcyivyns éumtvoudtwr: Kai Kiptos eyerviOn Bonds pov. 


e 


mwadtw 6 avrds elrev: 


kal 


ws mpoBarov émi apayhv HxOn, kal ws duvds dxa- 


kos évavriww [évavriov] tod Knpavros [Kelpavros] av’rov, otrws dpwvos ovK 
dvolye: TO ordua adrod: év TH Tamewwoe abrod h Kplors abrod HpOe [HpAn]- 
Thv 5¢ yevedy abrod ris Sinyhoerar; “Ore aiperac dwd rhs yas H Swn 


avrod. [Compare p. 27.] 


Tote of wa@ytai mavres adévres abrov 
épvyov. 

Ei! ody 6 xtAtapxos Kal ot banpérar 
tov lovéaiwy ovvédAaBov Tov “Incodv, Kat 
édncav avTdv, Kat avyyayov avToyv mpods 
Avva. (sic) mpatov* jv yap mevOepds Tov 
Kaidda, bs fv apxtepeds Tod eviavTod 
éxeivou' hv 6€ Kaiddas 6 cupBovaAcioas 
tois “Iovdaiots, Ste cupbéper Eva arodré- 
Oat irép Tov Aaov. ‘O ody apxtepeds Hpw- 
tyoEVv Tov "Incovv 

Tept Tov MabynTav avTov, 
Kat tmept THs Sidaxs abrod, Aéywv* Tod 
oi maOntai gov oi Kavxdmuevor [kavxyadpe- 
vot] cvvaToOvyicKev gor; mov ol mapa cov 
iabévrTes ; mas odx EVpEOy Tis BonOyjoe [Bon- 
Ojcas? BonOjoar?] cor; 

‘O & “Ingots cimevs eyo mappycia 
éAddnoa TO Kéouw, eyo mavra edidata év 
avvaywy), Smov “lovdaiot svvipxovTo, Kai 


év KpuTT@ eAdAnaa ovdér, 
Tas ; 
Anca 


Ti me érepw- 
érepwtnoov Tovs akynKkodtas, Ti éAd- 
avtots, kai obdror oidacww & elrov 
vuivy, Tadra adrod eimdvtos, eis Tov UTy- 
PETOV TapecTyKws EdwKev pamiona TH "Iy- 
gov, eimav* ovTos? dmoxpivet [amoxpivy] 
TO apxtepet ; 0 5 amoxpiOels & “Inaods el- 
mev' é€av Kak@s éAdAynoa, pmapTipyocov 
mept Tov Kkakod: 7» [et] 5 Karas, Ti pe 
Sépns [Sépers]; Kai obtos éotiv 6 MdAxos, 
éxeivos ov [ob ?] 6 Iérpos adtAev [adetaAer] 
To wtiov avrov ro Sefidv ev Ta KTM 
[xitw], Kai 6 "Incods idgato abrév: da 
TovTO avTds éparnoev [épdmicev] Tov “Iy- 
govv avti Tov mAnpwématos THs iaTpiKs 
avTov. 

Tore amrjyayov aitrov mpds Kaiadav tov 
apxtepéa, Sov ol ypamparets Kai ol mpe- 
oBitepo. cuvyixOncav* & 8& Tlérpos HKo- 
Aovber abr@ amd paxpdbev Ews THs avARs 





1 Pro 4 ovbv [ometpa cai] que omissa. — D. 


2 ovtws. — H. 


§ 3.) 


Tov apxrepéws* eioHAGe S2 Eow peta TaV 
banpetav idetv Td TéAOs. 

Oi Sé apxvepets Kai dAov rd cuvédprov 
égnrouv Wevdouaptupiav, Oavatwcar av- 
Tov, Kai ovx evpov. Tore APov dv0 Wev- 
Soudprupes [kai] elmwov: otros elmer: 
Svvayar KataAdoar Tov vady Tod cod, 
Kai dca Tpi@v nuepov oixodounoat adbtov. 
eipeovev (sic) 5¢ tovTo dua Tov oTdémaTos 
(sic)! thy avdoracw. Kai avagras 6 ap- 
Xtepeds elev adte@: oddév amoxpivy Tor (sic) 
ovToi gov Katamaptupovow ; ‘O 8é Inaois 
éowi7a, Kai amoxpiOeis maddy apxepeds 
elmev aita* e&wpxigw [egopxigw] oe xara 
Tov @eov Tod CavtTos iva 7 wiv? eimys: 
av el 6 Xpiatis 6 vids TOU @cod; Acyer 
ato: av elmas* TAnY A€yw gor- amdpre 
OperOe Tov vidv TOU avOpwiToV Kabyjpevov 
ex Sefrov [Seftwv] tis Suvdmews Kai épyd- 
pevov emi TOV vVeheAwy TOD oipavod. Tore 
apxvepevds (sic, sine 0) Stéppyfe ra indria 
aitod Aéywv* ore éBAaghypwoev [éBAa- 
odypnoev]* ti étt xpeiav Exwmev [éxouer] 
paptipwr ; Oi Sé amoxpiOévres elmov: Evo- 
xos Oavdrov éoriv. Tore évémrvcay eis rd 
Tpdgwrov avTov, Kai éxodAddyoay [éxodAd- 


ACTS OF PILATE, 


11 


gucav] abrov, Kai éppdmiCov abtov A€yov= 
Tes* mpopyrevooy Huiv, Xpioré, tis éotiv 
6 maicas ce. 

‘O &€ Ilérpos ef éxd@nro év tH addy, 
kal €Oepyéveto [eOepuaiveto] év ty avOpa- 
kia, dudre Woxos Hv. Kal mpoonArAGev aita 
pia madioxn Aéyovoa* Kai od jada peta 
*Incod tov TadtAaiov. ‘O && Hpvijcaro 
Aéywv* ov« olda ti Aéyets. "Ex Sevrépov 
HAGevy GAAH Kat Aé€yer Tois wanpérats* 
éxet Kat obTOS Hv peta “Ingod Tod Nagwe 
paiov, Kai madd npvyicato ue0’ Spxov + obK 
olda Tov dvOpwrov. Kai pera puxpdv jA- 
Oev eis tay SovAwY TOU apxLepéws, TUyKaL- 
vas [ovyyevns] ob améxowev Llétpos rd 
@tiov avrov, Kai Adyer* odK ey oe eidov ev 
T® KUtw [kirw] met’ avTov; eimée AANOaS, 
kai ov €& abtov el; Kai yap 7 AaAta cov 
SjAov oe movec. Tote nptato katavabeya- 
Tigew Kal Oduye OTe ovK olda Tov av- 
Opwrov. Kai ev@éws aréxtwp éeduvyce * 
kai éuvycbn evs & Ilérpos Tov pymaros 
*Incov, eipyxdros avtous’ Ore mpiv adé- 
xtop [aAéxtopa] dwvngar * tpeis amapv7- 
ceima [Tpis amapvyicyn me]. Kai égerdOav 
ééw, ExAavoev TLKpas. 


, ” a 
Tore ayovow tov “Incovv él iyyeuova tov TIinarov: 


hv 5 tapacKkev) Tpwi: 


Kal lid 6 lovéas — 8ri xal — rds Hyayov tov “Inoodv évwmiov Tod Thd- 





Tov, év rpbuwp Kai Sydlq [Sercdig] exarexplOn (sic) dea THs aloxpas émiBovdas 
atrod* kal rH avrod droyrdce: werapednbels Bovhouevos droorpépar TA Tpid- 
kovra apyvpia Tots dpxtepedow Kal Trois mpecBurépos Tay *lovdalwy + Kal yvods 
(sic) [yvévres] abrdv, of kaxodpyo Kal of xarryopo Td Brep Bovderas 6 ‘Tov- 
Sas rovioa, Aéyour [Aéyouow] kar’ airod duopwvws, dua Kal 6 dads adrov 
kal pdvov éxarnybpouv cal vBpitov: Kal érdvw avbrod rh airiay érlOnoav * 
THs cravpwicews +> Kal kareBdsouv (sic) adrod mdvres Kal E\eyov* 6 mpo- 
dérns, 6 mapdvouos, 6 driros, 6 axdpioros, 6 Tov diddoKahov avTod do- 
vevoas, 6 rap avrod rods mbdas umrréuevos, 6 TO Baddvriov abrod Karé- 
xwv, Kal doa Oédwv (sic) Sidods CE abrod, Kal 0a Oéd\wv aroxpuTTéuevos. 
€¢ fs® obros dyavaxray cal wh Suvduevos Tods dverdicuods broueivac Kal Tats 





I odparos. — H. 2 yuiv. —H. 3 aire. —H. 

4 Horum de Juda pars certe posterius illata videtur, ob sermonis manifestam impari- 
litatem. — D. 

5 No crucifixion or condemnation to it had yet taken place, —a fact overlooked by the 
interpolator of these five lines. — H. 

6 ols. —D. Or fis may refer to airiav, preceding the interpolation. — H. 


12 ACTS OF PILATE, 


[§ 4. 


dxoais, Kal rocodrov bd mdvrwv Karaxpwomevos Kat bBprfdmevos, maparyevd- 
pevos &v TH vag, Kal evpay Tovs apxLepeis Kal Tods ypaypareis Kal rods 
Papialovs, elmevs ywworkw ands, dre kax@s érolnoa* Kal AdBere Ta dp- 
yipia & mo. Seddxare Sid 7d mpododvar rdv "Incodv mpds pévov iuiv.  Hyap- 
Tov yap mapado’s alua adOGov. Oi dé cirov: ri mpds quads; od bye. My 
Oedovruv 5¢ trav lovialwy défacbar Ta dpytpia, plyas TavTa pécov abr ay 


Kal épvye. 


Kai ameAOiov eis Tov olkov avTod, morh- 
’ , a’ 
gwar (sic) ayxovnv da cxoLwiov TOU Kpena~ 
cOjvat, Kal edpey THY ‘yuvaika, avTov 
KaOnuéevnv Kal mupedgev (sic) adéxTwpav 
(sic) é€v tH avOpaxia éotw (sic; és Td?) 
év TH gwovBdAa (sic), mpds tov (sic; mpo 
Tov?) yevoarOat avTov, Kai Aéyer avTy* 
avaota, yUvat, oixovéunody mor gxoLVior, 
ore BovAouar KpemacOjvat,? ws K .. 6 Te 
« x s > “~ »” ? -~ 3 , a * 
nH 5& yuvyn avrov én avt@:? Ti dpa dAé- 
yels TadTa Ta pyuata; Kai 6 ‘lovdas 
Aéyes avTy* yivwoKe ev aAnOela, OTe adi- 
cA . 4 4 > 

kws trapébwxa tov diuddoxaddv pov ‘Iy- 


Tov Tov @Oavata@car avtév* avtds 8 
perder dvagrigerat (séc) 1h tpirn neépa * 
Kat oval nuiv. Kai » yuvy avrod elmer 
avT@: wy Adyeu (sic) unde vouraas (sic) + 
OUTS, OTL WaTEP OUTOS 6 GAEKTwWP TuUpLa- 
Gopmevos ev TH avOpakia gwvicat Svvarat, 
ovTws Kai O “Ingots avacTicetat Somep 
Aéyets. Kat evOis ev TH AoyG avTis 
6 dAéxtwp éxetvos édwxev (sic) Tas mTépu- 
yas avTov, Kat éxpagev tpitov. Elta mi 
aGcis [wevaGeis] 6 “lovSas Ere mAciov, Kat 
evOvs émoingey Thy ayxdévyv Sia oxoL- 
viov 


govv Tots Kaxovpyots (sic) mpds Tov IltAa- 

kal éxpeudoOn, xal otrws dariy- 
Earo. Ot dé dpxiepe’s AaBdvres Ta dpytpia elmov: ovK eeorw Badeivy atta 
els rov KopBavd, Ore éml Tin aluards éorw. LTupBovdrdv re AaBdvres 7yydpacav 
e& airav rov aypiv rod Kepapuews eis raphy rots Eévors+ O1d ExAHOn 6 dypds 
€xeivos aypos aluaros ws Tijs ohuepov. Tore érdnpwdn 7d pnbev Sid ‘Tepe- 
pulov Tov mpopiyrov A€éyorTos* Kal €\aBov Ta TpidKovTa apyvpia, Thy TYyLhY TOD 
TeTyunucvov, dy éryudcavro® dard tév vidv “Iopajrd* Kal @dwkav avira eis 
Tov dypov Tod Kepauéws, Kaba ocuvératé por Kvpios.® 


[$ 4.] “Epxopevov d€ ToD ‘Inoob pos Tov nyepove 
ITinatov 


mpocektvow avrov of orpari@rat Tod IiAdrov* 


toravto Kal addou Eutrpocbev tod IIiAatov Katéxovtes 
onpalas, Exduvav [éavtas] cal ai onpaia, Kal mpocexdvouv 


\ > nr / iD > \ Lal , he 
tov Incodv. Oavyudfovtos ovv él TO yeyoveTt Tov 





¥ In margine in rubrica scriptum: éxpagev adéxrwp eWimévos [epyuévos]. — 
2 « (ut videtur) .. .’ 7’. (locus prorsus abrasus 4 vel 5 literarum). — —D. 
tus legit as jv &fios. Vide Thilonem, Cod. Apoc., p. cxxix. — A, 
' 8 Between a’r@* and ri the word Aéywy is written, and erased. — H. 
4 Legendum vopicat, nisi potius Aéye et vouions.—A. 
5 Vel éryzdoavro ductu ancipiti. — D. 
6 In loco detrito S solum conspicitur. — D. 


ae ee 


§-6.] ACTS OF PILATE, 13 


TIinarov eitrov oi “Iovdaiot mpos adrov: Kvpie, ody) ta 
onpeia Tpocexvvyncay Tov “Incodv, aX’ of oTpaTimTas ot 
TadTa KatéyovTes auchas. Aéyer 0 ITikadtos TH apyi- 
cvvayoayo* "“ExreEar dvipas Suvatovs daHdexa, doTe 
Katéyew avta iaxyupas. Kai tovtou yevouévou éxérev- 
cev 0 IIikdtos TH wnpétn exBareiv &Ew Tov “Incodv 
kal wddw eicayayely adtov. LEicepyopévov dé avtod, 
Tad exdwav TA onucia Kal TpoceKtvncay avTor. 

"Edavpacev obv peyddws 6 IIindtos. Ot dé “Iovdaioe 
elmov: Maryos éoti cal dva Tovto tot avta [Tavra]. 

[§ 5.]2 Aéyer 6 Ilidros r@ Inood* "Axovers, ri obrol cov KaTamapru- 
poder, Kat obx dmroxpiver |dmoxpivy|; “ArexplOn 6 “Inootds cal Aéyer’ Tas 
GvOpwmos éEovclay Exet ToU adeiv & Oéder, etre Kaddv Oéder elre KaKdv* 
éxovres ofy Kal avrol éfovglay & Bédovor éyew. 

[$ G.] Etmov of ‘Iovdaior mods airov. Th exwuev [Exouer] Aéyew mepl 
g00; mp@rov, ore €& apaprias ef yeyervnuévos* devrepov, bri did oe, bre 
eye Ons, epovedOnoay reccapdKxovra réccapes xididdes Bpépn’ Tplror, 
bre 6 rarhp cov Kal } pjrnp cov epvyov eis Atyurrov, 51d ovdév elyov 
Odppos eis tov adv. “Ent rodvros drexplOnoav of ‘lovéato. — oi rapévres 
éxeice OcoceBeis divOpwro.— al elrov’ ‘Hyeis déyouev, bruh yévvynors abrod 
€& duaprias ox torw* oldapev yap, bre Tiv unrépa airod Mapidy 6 ‘Iwond 
Kara Néyov pryoreias ed¢aro ravrny els ripnow. Etrev 6 Tuddros* Aot- 
mov wevdecbe iyets of A€yovres, Sri €£ Guaprias éoriv h yévvynors adrod. 

Aéyouow avtol madw te Ilitdtw: ‘O rads Gros 
poaptupet, Str payos éotiv. ‘ArrexpiOnoav —oi Geoce- 

lal ¢ > n \ 8 e a 
Beis — ot “Iovdaior kai citrov: “Hyeis 
Kat els Thy pvnorelay Tis unrpds adrod HueOa, Kal “Iovdaiol écpev, cal 


oe. \ / > Le 18. > \ / a 
TacaVv THY TOALTELAY AUTOU Ol0apEV, AANA payov TOUTOV 
elvalt ovK oldaper. 


Oi 5é raira Aéyovres OeoceBeis Fioav obror* Adgapos, “AcOdpios, “Avrw- 
vos, “IdkwBos, Zapas, SapovyrA, “Iocadx, Pwees, Kplomos, Adypiros [Ad- 
ypirmos|, Eipweccé cat ‘Iovdas. Ayer ofv mpds adrods.6 II:kdros* is 
Tiv Swihv Tod Kaicapos Oéd\w Wa dudonre, el xwpls duaprlas éorly q yévvy- 





1 The special subject of § 5, a message from Pilate’s wife, is not found in 
Paris D.—H. 


14 ACTS OF PILATE, [§ 7. 


ows Tod dvOpwrov tovrov. *AmexplOncav obra Kal elmav’ ‘O vbuos tudv 
dpiver wa pndév duriwuev, Ore peyddn dmapria éorlv 6 8pKxos* whi Ge 
els Thy Swiv trod Kaicapos duriwuev, bre xwpls auaprias éorly h yévvn- 
ois avrod* ef dé WevddueOa, KaparounOjvac mavras Huds Kédevoor. 


Taira tovTwy eirovtwy amexpiOncav of Kkatnyopodr- 
b] nr \ 
tes ‘Iovéator mpos IIitatov Kat eiov: Kai mréov ti- 
aTEvEels TOis ToLOVTOIS SwdeKa povols "Iovdaiois, 4 TavTi 
to TwANOE Kal Huly aKptBa@s €Ld0 TO l l 
¢ nOer Kai tiv axpiBas eiddow avTov payov Ka 
Brachnpovvta, Kal viov Ocod éavtov dvopatovTa. 
/ e n 
[$ 7.] Tore éxéXevoev 0 IIiXdtos ravtas é&edOciv éx 
Tov TpaiTwpiov avev povev Tav pnOévtav SwHdexa* Kal 
4 / / \ > \ / € ‘ 
TOUTOU ‘yevouévou Aéyet Tpos avTodvs Kpupiws o IIida- 
TOS ° Tov avOpwrrov TOUTOV — kaTa TO hawdpevoy &pxovres — 
/ ‘ / tf e > \ U \ / / 
hevetar [haivetai] por, 6Tt amo POovov Kai pavias Oé- 
e *T 6 an 7 7 > / 4 A \ 
Aovawv of Lovdaios iva dhovevowow avtov: éva [ev] yap, 
/ fa) a 
du0Te Katadver TA caBBata, KaTnyopovctww avTov* avTos 
\ / lal \ + / 4 \ > 
dé Tore moet Kadov Epyov, Sidte Oeparrever tovs acbe- 
a a / 
vels* TovTo Katadixn Oavatov eis Tov avOpwrov ovK 
4 / bd lal e , rm, 4 / cf 
eat. Aeyovow avT@ ot dwdexa* Nai, Kvpsé pov, ov- 
tas éyet. “EEnNOev ody o IIindtos Em per opyys Kal 
a \ / \ \ v \ \ K « / \ 
Oupod, Kal réyes pos Tov “Avvav Kal Tov Kaidadav cai 
‘ \ / \ J a » a tA ES \ sé 
mpos Tov Aaov* Kal eimrev TOD ByNou Ov Hdepov! Tov “In- 
a \ fe} 
cotv: Tiva xarnyopiav épete Kata tod avOpwmov 
TovTov; pdptupa éyw Tov Hdtov, STL ovdey Traicpa 
evplcxw eis TovTov Tov avOpwrrov. 


"AmexplOn 6 3xdos kal elev’ ei [uh Fv?] odros yéns Kal ud-yos kal BAd- 
opnuos Kal Kaxomroids, ovK av mpds TO peyareiov TO ody tyomev adrdv Kal 
mapedwKayev. Elmev 6 Ilikdros* ‘Eéerdoare rodrov tyets, xal émel vowov 
éxere, kabws éyer 6 vouos judy, o}rws rohoare. Eloy oi lovdata* ‘O véd- 
fos nuaw ovdéva dvOpwirov wapaxwpel Huds povedoar. Aéye: 6 Iiddros* Hi 
duets povedew ov Bovdrerbe, wocov [récw] wGdrov eye ; 

Tére eéorpdgn 6 Iiddros ev rp wadarlw, kal épdvnce tov "Incodv Kat 





I ds épepe.—T. Perhaps tots dxAas (or TH SXAw) ot Ehepov. — H. 
2 Not in Codex. — H. 


§ 7.] ACTS OF PILATE. 15 


elrev air@* Eimé po, od ef 6 Bacireds trav “Iovéalwy; "AmexplOyn aire 
6 ‘Inoods kal elwe* Xv Todro déyets, # GAAoe *Iovdaior elroy Todro mpds 
oe, wa we épwrjoys; Hiwey 6 Iliddros* Kal pare eyw ‘EBpaiés elu ; 
éy® ovk elul “EBpaios: 6 dads cov Sé Kal of dpxuepe’s mapédwxdy ce eis 
Tas xeipds mov: Kal elré po, ef Bacireds ef Ttav Iovdaiwy. ‘ArexplOn 
6’Incotds* ‘H Bacireia  euh otc torw év Te Kéouy TovTy, el yap fv 
q é€uh Bacrrela ev ro’ry Te Kbouw, of orpati@ral pov ovK dy euedor (sic) 
dedicat KparnOival we: owrdv 7 Bacideia pov ok torw év TO Kbouw 
rovrw. Aéye: 6 Ilikdros* Td Aorwdv Bacireds el; Eirev 6’Inoods: Xv 
elmas* éyw els Tovro éyervnOnvy Tod waprupely Thy ad7jOeay, Kal et tis éorw 
GvOpwros ris adnOelas, misrever Tov AdYor mov Kal moet airdv. Aéyer 
6 Iiddros* Ti éorw adHOea ; 

*AmexpiOn 6 Xpicris* ‘H dAjbed éorw éx trav odpaydv. Aéye 

6 Ilikdros* “Ey ry y7 Se otk eorw ddjOea; Aéyer 6 Xpicris* 

"Eye eluc ) aGdjOea* cal was év TH Yn Kpliverar 7) GAjOeva Tapa Tov 

éexdvrav ynivnv éfovclar ; 

*"Adels of 6 WiAdros tov Xpicrdv pdvov €&fOev ew, kal Aéyer Tots "Iov- 
Oalors* “Ey ovdev edploxw mraicua év trovre TQ avOpdrw. “AmexplOnoav 
ot “Iovdaton: ‘Hwuets ta elrwuev TH peyaderdrnri cov, rh elev aris ° 
elrev, dre Sivayar KaTaddoa. Tov vady Tod Beod Kal bad Tpiav nuepGv olko- 
Soufjoa atrév. Aéyec 6 IliAdros* Kal rotov vadv elrev a [iva]! xara- 
Nice [Wa xaradvoy]; imoy of *Iovdator* Tdv vadv roi Lodoudvros, bv 
Exrigev 6 Lodroudw émt ere [rn] reccapdxovra &&. <Aéyer 6 IliAdros 
ldia? [ida] mpds rods dpxtepeis Kal rods ypauuareis Kai Tos Papicalous * 
Tlapakar® vuas, pnddv mwoujoere [wovjoare| xaxdv els todrov rir dvOpw- 
mov* éav yap growjonre els Tolrov Kaxdv, ddika pédArETE trovioew* ov ydp 
éort dixatov dmofavety ro.otrov dvOpwrov, boris érolncev dyaba peydda 
mpos woods avOpwmrovs. Himov éxeivoe mpds rov Iiddrov: El 6 driud- 
gas, Kkpié pov, Tov Kaicapa, déibds éore Oavdrov, mbow pmaddov odros 
6 dridgwv rov Oedv; . Tére dpirev 6 Tliddros, Kat é9\Oov waves 
fiw. Elra déyet r@ “Inood- Tih Odes worhow cor; Aéyer 6 I noots 7B 
IliAdrw* moinoov eis éue, Srws eoriv dpicudvov. “AmexplOn 6 "Iyoods* 
‘O Movofs kal of mpopira: eypayav cravpwOfvat pe Kal dvacrfvat 
‘Akodcavres ratra ol ‘EBpaio: elroy mpds rov IiAdrov' Tk fyreis 
dxovcat peyahwrépay UBpw é& av’rod mpds rov Oedv; Aéyer 6 Tidaros * 
"TBpews dyos obros mpds riv Oedv odk eorw* érel ev Tails mpopyrixais 
BiBros ypaderat. Elarov of ‘EBpatoc: ‘H tuerépa ypaph Adyar: "Edy 
mraicy dvOpwros mpds dvOpwrov, Hyouv gay bBploy adbrdv, dibs éorw, Wa 





1 Ob ev scriba preteriit wv, et improbabilis conjectura Thilonis. — D. 
? Recentior manus przposuit xar’.— D. 


16 ACTS OF PILATE. 3 Iss 


AauBavy werd paBdov mdryas reccapaxovra*s dy dé bBplon ris Tov Gedy, 
tva \cOoBor7rat. ' ; 


Tére HAVE unvurhs dwd ris IpdxAns rhs yuvacxds rod Ili\arov mpds 
avrov, 7d dé phvupa edreyer* “Ore mpdcexe, ph cvyxaraBys wa 
yévnral te Kkaxdv els rov “Inoodv, Tov Kaddov dvOpwrov. “Ori xara 
Tiv vixra poBepods dvelpous eldov 5¢ ardor. 


"Edwxe 5¢ droNoylay 6 Iliaros mpds rods ‘EBpalovs* “Idod, édy éxere (sic), 
8rt UBpis eort mpds rov Oedv, Tov éyov dv Aéyere Bre elev 6 “IyoOods, 
AdBere adrov kal xKplvare duets Kara Tov vouov vuar, 


Eizov oi "Iovdaior t6 ITitdt@: “Hyeis Oédopev va 
oTavpwcwpev [otavpwoons| avtov. Xtpadels Se o Ii- 
NaTos pos TOY Nady Eide TrOAXOVS KAaloyTas Kal eimeV* 
5 \ As ” a A , n \ ” 
Epot Soxet otk éott Tod aod mdvTos OéAnpa Tov av- 
Opwrrov Tovtoyv amobaveiv. 


Aéyovow ol tepets cal of ypayyarets* ‘Hyets 5a rodro rév Nady dravra 
Hyayouev, wa AdBys wrnpodoplay, Sr. wavres Tov Oavarov avrod Oédovow, 
Aéyes 6 Ilikaros* Ti yap xaxdv éroincey; Eloy of ‘EBpato* Baciéa 


éaurov elvac Neyer Kal viov Geod, 


[§ 8] “Iovdatos oty — becocepjs — pécov orabels, dvd- 
pate Nixddnwos, eimre mpos tov IIitdtov: Aéopat tis 
/ ‘ n 
peyaneoTnTos cov, gacal pe eitreiy Tpos oe OAiya Tia 
pnwata. “Edn o IIindtos: Eimé. Aéyet 0 Nixodnuoss 
"Ey elrra Tots lepedou kal trois Aevitais Kal Tols ypap- 
A ‘al al , 
patedot kal TO Aa@ Tapwv év TH cvvaywyn Tiva doyov 
| é | F 
éyeTe Kata Tov avOperov TovTov ; ovTos 0 avOpwrros 
moda Oavpata trove?, ola avOpwmds Tote ovK érolnoev 
\ , : \ 
ovde py) Tounoe. “Adete odv avTov* Kal eb pev éoTiv 
> \ a n + 
ato Qeod bca Trove, ictacOa, péArovow, ef SE EoTW . 
> \ ? , a / ' 
avo avOpworwv, KkatadvOhvar pédAroveLW. 


Kadas éyévero xal 8ray dréoreiiev 6 Beds Tov Mwvojy els rhv Aty- 
mTTov, Kai elre pds airov 6 Papaw Bacireds Alyimrou Wa rovjoy onuetov, Kal 
érolncev. Elra elxev 6 Dapaw kal pdryous Siw, rov “lavfqv [Tawiv] kat 


§ 9.) ACTS OF PILATE. 17 


"TauBpiv- Kat érolncav cat airol onueta payixg réxvyn xpwyevor, odxl dé 
boca érrolnoev 6 Mwvofjs+ elxov 5¢ of Alydmrioe rods To.ovTovs pdyous. ws 
Beods* Sidre Sé ovK Foav éexelvor Ex Oeod, KaredUOnoay ola érolncay. 


~ Odros ody 6 “Inoods tov Adfapov dvéctnoe, xa £7. 
Ata rodto Séopai cov, Kipié pov, va pndev rapaywpn- 
ons povevOjvat tov TovodTov tatpov Kal fworpodor. 
"EOvupedncav ot “E8paios cata trod Nuixodypov, Kal e- 
gov avT@* Tv adn0eav tod “Inood iva trapaddBns Kat 

, A ” > > n , ¢ , > \ 
fépos va exns peT avtod. Aéyer 0 Nixodnpos: “Apr, 
apnv, aynvs yévorto pot, Kalas Réyere. 

[§ 9] Tatra etzrovtos tod Nikodyjpou repos éeyepOels 
“EBpaios reyes TO ITiratw* Aéopai cov, xvpre Tiare, 
” 5 a ’ E Ae a! ep > A > \ / y” 
akovcov Kapod. yo éxeiunv acbevav éri Krivns ern 
TpiaKOVTa OKT®, Kal tdwov pe édAvTrIOn, Kal eiwé por: 
vel 3 \ f s \ EAN a \ 

yelpov, apov tov KpaBBatov aov, Kal tmaye eis TOV 
+ ihe Kat b] “A ? a \ Xo , ee - 6 
oiKOv cov. év T@ elTrely pot Tov AOyov HryépOnv 

A , Aé ilies é a os] / 
kal wepveratovv. Aéyovow ot “Iovéaiows ‘Epwrticate 
avrov, év Toia Hpépa Tis éEBdopados TodTO éyéveTo. 
Gpas kat rd Khwldidv cov, Aéyer éxeivos' "Ev caBBato. Ei- 
qrov ot Iovdaiow- Kat dorov ddrnOas apeis NEyomev, OTe 
70 cdBBatov ov typel. “Etepos radu atabels ev péow 

> A > / Foe \ / fal 
eirev? "“Eya éyevvnOnv tupdos* Kal tropevopévov Tov 
‘Inood Kata tiv odov éBonca Tpos adtov éywy* €den- 
J \ \ 54 , 
oov He, kvpie, vic Aavid. Kai rAaBwv mnrov expicé 
ER , ae 
pov Tovs eave hors. kat evOds avéBreWa. TEpos eEl7re 
Kuddos junv, xal idov auTov éBonoa: éNénoov pe, Kv- 
pte. Kal AaBopevos (stc) pe Tis xeupos, evOvs myepOny. 
"AndXos elrrev* ‘Eye hemrpos i, Kal idcato pe pmovov 
Sud oyou. EipéOn €Kel Kal ryuv1) dvomatopevn Bepovixn, 
ai o 
Kad elev? “Ore SwHdexa Hy ern eye évy pioet GUHATOS, 
Kad povov Tod ivatiov avtod Ths axpas Frydauny, Kal ev- 
Bis idOnv. Aéyovow oi “Tovdaios: Maprtupiav yuvacKos 


18 ACTS OF PILATE, [§ 10. 


6 vomos ov Tapadéyetat. “Ardot avOpwrot éBonoav* 
e ¢ / hog te \ e , ¥ 
Odtos 0 avOpwros mpopyrns éotl, Kal ot Saimoves av- 
tov goBodvta. Aéyes o ITindtos: Kali mas ovdev 
n a ” / 
éboBovvto ottw Kal Tors yovels tuav Ta Samora; 
Aéyovow éxeivors Ov ywookouev. “Addot TadrW El- 
mov’ Tov Aatapov tetaptaiov dvta év TO pvyjpate Kal 

if 
Sia ANoyou pdvou avéatncev. "Axovcas ovv oO IIidaTos 
an / \ 
Thv avactacw tov Aafdpov époBnOn, Kai Aéyet pos 
. r 

Tov Aaov' Ava ti Oérere, va yvonTe (sic) aipa Sixavov 
[Scxalov?] avOparrov ; 

[$ 10.] Eira mpocexarécato tov Nixddnpov Kat tovs 

, re ’ / A 3 x > , 
daHdexa — SeoceBeis —’Iovdaious, xal elme mpos avTous’ 
Ti réyete iva Troujtw, OTL 6 ads TapdooeTar; Aéyou- 
ow éxeivors Ov yiwwooKoper * 


5 Bovhec [Bovdry], molncov* 6 rads Se 8cov oret, ddixws more?, wa eVpwoe 
robro.! 


a ¢ 
"EEHNGe Tadw o IIindtos Ew Kal rAéyet mpos Tov adv 
Olsate, Stu év Tais éoptais tTav alipov éotl cuvnbes, 
A a > € ral e a (v4 > \ an / 
iva ércvOep@ Sv’ juds [tpas] &va aro Tov KexpaTnuévwv 
. \ e , ” ah os A n A 
els Ppoupav urevOuvwv: Eyw ov ev TH PvdaKH KaKoUp- 
\ / lal 54 \ \ ’ lal 
yov AnoTHv, Aeyouevov BapaBav, éxw Kai tov ‘Incodr, 
doTIS ToTé KakOV OvK éTroince: Tiva obv éx Tav bvo Oé- 
rete va aTrodvcw wpiv; °>AmexpiOn 6 Aads: *ArroAVGOV 
npiv tov BapaBadv. Aéyer o IIinatos: Ti obv roimow 
tov ‘Inoodv; Aéyovow éxeivor: ZravpwOyto. Tadw 
3Q/ eg > > A ’ \ \ bf an > 4 
éBonoav Erepor €€ avtav: ’Eav tov ‘Incovv aroxdv- 
a a \ 
ons, ov« et diros tod Kaicapos, di0tt viov Oeod éavTov 
> / \ / \ 2\ : , > SS i 
ovomater Kal Baciréa* Kai éav édevdepwoons adr, yive- 
tat Baoiréas [Bacidevs, Kal] ahs AaBew tHv Bact- 
Aelav tod Kaicapos. 





1 Fort. tva aipwot rovtov.— T. 


§ 10.] ACTS OF PILATE. 19 


*HOupd0n ody 6 Tiddros kal ele * Idvrore 4% yeved tudv Fy SiaBodixh 
kat dmicros, kal del mpds rods evepyéras juay Fre dvrldixo. Etro ol 
"“EBpator* Kat rives fioav iudy evepyérac; Aéyec 6 Iuddros* ‘O Oeds 
6 éXevOepdioas dutis ex Tov xe—pGv Papaw, cal divarepdoas suas rhy épv- 
Opav Oddaccav ws eri Enpas, kai xoprdcas juds! Vdwp éx mérpas kal 6 dods 
iudy [byutv] vouov, dv Karehicare Tov Oedv dpyvncduevor* Kal ef ph Moi- 
ons éord0n mapaxadav rdv Ocdv, mixp@ Oavdrw dv éuéddere wavres tap- 
arohécOat. Idvrwv odv éxelvow érehdbecbe. Oi'rw 5é xal viv \éyere,? oddev 
ayar® éyw rov Katcapa, ddX éxw picos eis abrov, kal O€\w Wa ériBovdevdco- 
pat [értBovrevowuat] xara ris Bacirelas abrod. Kal raira elrav 6 Iliddros 
Wyép0n*% rod Opévov wera Ovpod, Oéduv gvyeiv €& adrdv. “Expatay ody oi 
"Tovdator Néyovres* “Hyeis rov Kaicapa 0é\wuev [édouer] Bacihevew fucy, 
ob rdv “Inoody, didre 6 ’Inoots éx rav pdywv edékaro yapicwara. Kal #xovce 
Tovro Kal 6 ‘Hpwéns, dre Bacireds péddee yevecOar, Kal 7Oé\(ncev wa go- 
vevon avrov, kal év tovrw améoreite kal dwéxrewe mdavta Ta Bpépyn Ta ev 
ByOrcéu. Aca robro 5é cal 6 “Iwond 6 rarip aitod cal 4 wirnp adtod 
épvyov awd rod PbBov adrav [airdv?] els rhv Alyuvrrov. *Axotoas Tot 
yapoty 6 IIiddros rovs rovovrovs Aéyous kal PoBnOels Kxareclynoe wavra 
rov adv [kal Aéye]** Aordv obrés éorw 6 ’Inoods, dv éfhres rére 6 “Hpw- 
Sys govetoar; Aéyovsow airg* Nal. Tvwpicas ofv 6 Iiddros, 8re 
ris émixparelas éort rod ‘Hpwdov, ws éx rod yévous xarayéuevos trav ‘Tov- 
dalwy, daécretke rov “Inoody mpds airév. Kai lddw avriv 6 ‘Hpwdns 
éxdpn peyddws* Fv yap érOuudv lev abrdv, dxotwv ra Oadiuara & éroler, 
*Evéducey ody atrov iwdria AevKd, efra Fptaro auvrdv épwrqv: Tlddev ef 
Kal éx molov yévous; ‘O dé “Incods dméixpicw otk Edwxev air@. Oédd\wWr 
8 6 “Hpwdys ideiv cal Oadua ri more yevduevov mapa Tod Xpiorod, cal wi 
lddv, GAN Bre ob5e aGexplvaro mpds abrdv tov TuxdvTa éyov, dméorehev 
airov ad@is mpds rov Ili\drov. ‘O dé rads Expager* Zravpwhjrw. 


a 4 A 

Tovro idev o Ilindtos cite tots brnpétais avTov arya- 
LA } & ¥ N. f 5 \ a 

yeiv Udwp, Kal odTor Epepov. Numtopevos ody tas yeipas 

/ > ar 

peTa Tov VdaTos &hy Tpdos Tov Aadv: “AOads elt a7ro 
nea A a A , > , e a ” 

TOU aiuatos TOU KaXov TovTOV avOpwrrov: wtpels drYpeoOe, 

A 4 
étt adixws TodTov poveveras [fovevere], 





1 Some words not found in Codex D are here supplied by Thilo, probably from Codex 
Venetus: thv dptvyopyrpay, éx wétpas avixpov motigas To Vdwp, Kai 6 dois. — H. 

2 Thilo supplies 67+. — H. 

8 Thilo supplies ard. — H. 

* Omisit Codex. — D. 


20 ACTS OF PILATE. [§ 11. 


érel ore éym eipov év atr@ airiav, adX otre ‘Hpddns* dia rodro mh 
ereuyev adOis rodrov mpds pe Sriobev. 


Eirov of "Iov8aior- To aiwa aitod éf juas Kat émt 
TH TEKVA NUOV. 7 | 


Oi 52 dpxtepets EOopuBodvro apos Tov dadv, tva adrdv cuvroubrepoy (sic) 
dmokéowow. ‘O Sé Aads afOis mpds rov IliAdrov ...1 Tore ever 
Tt Inood 6 Iudros* 2d ef 6 Bacideds tay Iovdaiwy ; ‘“O 6 “Inoods dré- 
kptow otk @wxev airg@ Aéyer 6 IliAdros* "Emot od Aadels; ovd« oldas, dre 
éfouclay éxw oravpdcal ce, cal efovolay exw daoddoal oe; Liev ob 
ait@ 6"Inoots: Ov exes xaplay (sic) éfovciay cat mod, el ph ty coe 
dedouévoy dvwler. 


[§$ 11..] Tore éedOicev eis tov Opdvov avtod o ITind- 


A Mm > / oAN ar 9 a 7 ; 
Tos, va Toinon atohbacw Kata Tov ‘Incov. “Qpiow 
5 ae. | BA > A JC. fa 
ovv Kal HOev EutrpocVev avtod o ‘Inaods. 


Kal édpepov orépavov é& dxavOdv, kal @0nxay éml ri Kepadipy ad- 
Tov, kal kddapov érl ri dekiay xetpa. 


ih 
Eira éroince thv amopacw, Kal réyet mpos avTov* 


"H yeved cov réyer Kal paptupel ce, btt Oéreus Wa Ba- 
airevons* Sia TodTO opita, wa — : 
ot ripywou mp&rov pera pdBdou mdryas Tecoapdxovra, Kabds dplfovew ot 
vouo. Tav Baciéwr, kal wa ce éumalfwot, kal TedevTaiov wa 


oe CTAUPOTwWOLW. 


Ths rovatryns ofy dmroddcews yevoudyns mapa rod IiuAdrov, nptavro ot 
Tovdaio. rurrew Tov "Inoody, of wey pdBdos, of 5 xepolv, of 5é wooly, of 
62 Kal els 7d mpdcwrov abrod érrvov. 


\ 4 
Evdvs ody Katackevdoavtes Tov oTavpov wvirnyovTo 
\ \ a , a \ 
mMpos TO oTavp@cat avTov: Kal Sovtes TodTOV mMpos av- 
: | 
TOV éTéTAVTO OdevELD. 


-Kal otrw mopevéuevos, Bacrdiwv Kat rov cravpdv, HrAOe péxpe THs wvAnS 
Tis. wodews “Tepocod\tmwv, "Amd trav mwodhGv obv wryyav Kal dard rod 





! There must here be an omission in the Codex. — H. 


Le er ae 


- 


— eee a 





§ 11] 





Bdpovs rod cravpod wi) Suvdpevov rodrov (sic) mepimarely, obrot, éx Ths 
érOuulas js elxov of “Lovéator oravp@oar avrov Tdxos, dpavres dm av- 
Tov Tov oTavpoy, Kal @dwxay adrov mpds twa Kupynvaiov ovvayrijcavta 
avrots, dvouatt Siuwva, ekepxouévov! dm’ aypov, boris eixe dvo viods, 
"AdéEavdpov Kat ‘Podpov *— Av St ard Kuphvys tis médews '— Cdwxar 
ody mpos avrov Tov araupdv, odx ws édeobvros [éeodvres] Tov ‘Inoodv Kal 
éhappivovres amd Tob Bdpous avrov, d\n eémiOumodvres, ws elpnrar, poved- 
oat avrov cwrouwrepoy, éyxdpevoay [Hyydpevoay] abrov tov Kupnvaioy, iva 


dpy Tov oraupdy avrod. 
peOepunvevduevoy Kpaviov Tézos. 


"Hxodov6n [Hrodov@er] otv éxet ex 
Tav pabnTav avTov 6 “Iwdvvys. ita dv- 
yav mayer mpds Thv OeoTdKov, Kai Aéyer 
peta Saxpvwv* @ Kvpia mov Kal mitep 
Tod SidacKkdAov pov, mov o8a Kai ovK 
HAGes, iva idys ti eyévero; ‘"Amexpidn 
éxeivn* Tt éoriw Omep éyévero; Aéyer 
6 "Iwavyns* yivwoke ote ériagay oi ‘Iov- 
Sato. tov SiSdoKxaddvy pov, Tov adv vid: 
Kal Umdyovew iva oravpicwow avrov. 
Kai axovcaga TovTo 7 OcoTéKos H wT * 
avTov, expage meyadAn TH hwry, Kai éBda 
A€yovga* Oimor otuor, vie wou yAvKUTate * 
ti Gpa Kaxov émoingas tois “Lovédaiots ; 
Kai tmdyovciv ge mpds TO oravpaca. 
*"Exadégero kai nyépOn Bomep eoxoticpery, 
kai amyjpxeto xAaiovea. Karta rhv oddv 
HKoAOVOovY avTH Kai yuvaixes, } Te Mapba 
Kal Mapia 7 MaydSadnvy, cai 7) Saddun, 
Kai €tepat mapOévor. fv S& Kai “Iwavyns 
per auras. ‘Qs obv épOacay eis Td TAR- 
Bos Tov GxAov, Aéyer H OeoTdKos mpds Tov 
“Iwdvyvnv* mod éotiv 6 vids pov; Aéyer 
6 "Iwavyns: ‘Opas éxeivoy [Tov dopodvra 
Tov atépavoy] Tov axdvO.vov Kai Tas xel- 
pas Sedeuevov; “Axovcaca 7 OeoTdKos 
Tas xetpas Sedeuévoy Kai idodca avrov, 
bdAryoxice [wAvyoWxyoE], Kai Eérecev 
OmioGev xXapmai eis THY yHv* Kal éxecTo 
ixavnv @pav. Kai ai yuvaixes Scat HKo- 
AovOovy avTH, iotdmevat yipwhev (sic) av- 
THs Kat éxAavov. “Ad’ ob Sé Kai avé- 
mvevee Kai HyépOn, Spayovca ws dAaieva 
[Aéatva] vd [amd] aypod Kai Srappyéaca 
Ta ipdria avris, ovpavorAdEws (sic) ime- 
BAérero Tots "lovdaiors Aéyovea’ Sdre wor, 
avipes, d50v mepimatioat Kai mécar (sic) 


Kai pépovow adtrov émt Todyo0a rémov, & éore 


mpos Td apviov mov’ Sdre wow, avdpes, Td- 
Tov, OTws KAavow Tov vidvy mov, Td ap- 
viov THs Wuxis mov, Td OvAayydAaxTov 
[ste ; an @nAoydAaktov ?] Tay pacOav mov. 
Sére por, avdpes, térov, Stws Ocopicw 
[Oewpijcw] Kai KdAavow Tov vidvy pov. 
Kat 7d ornOos avtis TUmTovca Kai éBda 
Aéyovga* Oimoe oipor, yAuvKitaréy pov 
Téxvov, POs TOV SupaTwv pov, Tas Umo0- 
péva Oewp@v ve Ev TH CTAUPHO Kpeudue- 
vov; Oiyot oipor, Sedte mavtes KAavoare 
THY TETPaVMaTLOMEVHY pov Wuxyv' Ste 
Tov movoyevy mov vibv Bewpw emi oravpod 
« C. * « s ‘ * ~ 
vTAwpévov [nTAwpévov] Kat yn AadAodvTa 
mpds we. Sevte akovoate Aaol, PvAai Kat 
yA@ooat, TovodTov Odvarov adikov édwxay 
Tov viod mov (sic), Kai maéAw yeywvorépa 
> , ‘ s * * 
é€Bonoev dwvnv peyddnv (sic) Aéyovca* 
vié ov, vie pov, mov Td KaAAOS edu Tis 
Kopdis gov; ras ayvepiotos daivyn mor; 
TOS Umoueivw Oewpeiy oe ToLa’Ta ma- 
cxovTta; Kat ratta Aéyovca étumtTe Td 
oTHn00s avTis, Kat Kkaréfevac [xarégatve] 
META TOV dVIXwWY Td TpdTwWTOY aUTHSs, Kat 
Bapéws otevagovta [orevagovca] éAeye* 
mov édéBynoav (sic) Ta ayaa boa emoin- 
gas év TH “Iovdaia; Ti Kaxdv mpds Tos 
*lovdaious, vid pov, éroi ; avtl aya- 
§ pou, noas; avti ay 
@av Kaka édAaBes* avti Tod ayanay ge, 
vié pov tmaudiAtate Kai yAvKvTaTe, Tov 
/ , , > hia 
Woyov mpocehépaci [mpocedépocar?]. Ov- 
tws ovv iddvtes avtnv ot “Iovdaior Opnvod- 
‘ EA . sor 
gav Kat Kpagovaav, HAPov Kai édiwKxov 
as > ‘ a < a e a > > 4 
avTnv amo Ths Od00+ H Sé ovK emibeTo 
[emetOero] huyety, GAA’ Emeve, Kai éBda 
Aéyovea* hovevoate éué mpwrov, Iovdatoe 
Tapavow.ot, . 





I éfepxdéuevov. — T, 


22 ACTS OF PILATE. [§ 11. 


, > , > \ 
Tore amecwOnoav! eis tov Aeyouevov Kpaviov Térov, 
a 9 x 06 \ > na e. *? a \ 
og av AiooTpwTOS, Kat exet EoTnoav ot Iovdaiot tov 
4 K \ >? £5 \ e / > rn \ , 
oTaupov. at efédvoay Ta ipatia avtod, Kal Siepepi- 
TavTo TAVTA Ol OTpaTL@TAL TpPds EavTOds. 
kal ¢didow air@ mueiv éruvpricuevoy olvov' 6 6& ovx BdaBev.  airdv 
dé évédvcavy xdamtda Koxkivyny* rovrécrw pwoov (sic) Koxkwov* Kal mdé- 
favres orépavov é& dxavOdv, éréOnxav él rhv xepadhy adrod xal yorvire- 
Thoavres Eumpocbev avrod évéumagfov [évérarCov] avrov éyovres* yaipe 
6 Bacireds Tv “Iovdaiwy. Kal éurricavres abrov, \aBov tov Kdédamov Kat 
érumrov els Tiv Kepadhy avrod. Kai bre évératavy abrov, é&éducav abrod riy 
xXAapddav (sic), rovréorw 7d pacov (sic) * 6 kadetrae woppipa.2 Kal évédvcav 
avtov Ta ludria TH tdia, Kal éfdyoutw adrov tva oravpwOy. Kal cravpiw- 


gavres avrov, Siemepicavro Ta iudria adrod, Bdddovres KAHpov éx’ avdra, 
ris ri dpe [dpet, D.; dpy? A.].8 


9 \ @ , a ery 4 b] / > “a “~ 

a. oe ONG TNS Wee aveBiBacav év T@® OTAVP@ 
b] \ 

Kal oTavpwoavTes avToV Kal éxappwcar. 


hy 5é % érvypapy ris Glas® (sic) abrod yeypaupévn én’ aire ypdupacw 
EMAquixijs [EAAnvixois] Kal popyaikAs [pwuaikots] cal éBpaixis [éBpaixois] \éywr 
(sic) + obros éorly 6 Bactheds Tay ‘Ioviaiwy, 


Kat cvotavpotow atte dSvo Anotais (sic),® &a ex Se- 
Evav kal eva é& evovipor. 


Kat of raparopevopevor €Bhacpjuow airdv, kowodvres [kwobvres] Tas Kepa- 
Ads adrav kal A€yovres* Oda, 6 Karadiwv Tov vady, Kal év Tpioly tpé- 
pas olkodouav, cGcov ceavrov, kat KaTtdBnOc dd rod cravpod. ‘“Opolws 
kal ol dpxuepets éumatfovres mpds addrjAovs pera Tov Ypauparéw Ee- | 
yov* d&\Xous Eowoev, éavrdv od divarar coat 6 Xpiords 6 vids Tov 
*Iopajd* KxataBdrw viv dard Tod oravpod, wa twuev Kal mioredowpev 
aurG. 





1 There must be an omission here. We might supply oi pa@yrai abrod, ot 5 orpa- 
Tt@Tat amyyayov avrov.— H. 

2 Non recte igitur Thilo dixit hec paucis exceptis cum [Cod.] Ven. consentire. — D. 

3 This paragraph, though out of place, must have been inserted before the time of ies 
tin -Martyr. Compare /udirect Testimony, Note A, foot-note 57.— H. 

* The MS. has not ére.— H. 

5 airias. — H. 6 Anoras. — H. 





§ 11.] 


‘Kai taira méAw axovoas (sic) 9 Geord- 
Kos, Avrovmévn Kai éx Badov (sic) kapdias, 
‘oTptykyoas (sic) meydAn TH Gwvn meTa 
Bapéos orevaynod Kai mxpotdtwv Sda- 
Kpvwv mapamovévta (sic) éxpagev mpos 
Tov apxayyeAov TaBpendA Aéywv: & Ta- 
BprnA apxdyyeAe, mov el (Kat ovk Eat 
de) iva Sixkdcomat mera Gov; Tavta éi- 
giv omep (sic) éAeyés wor Ev TH evayyedrt- 
ouG, Kal elmés mor; xXalpe KexaprTwuevy 
Mapia, 6 Kvptos meta gov. ‘Opmoiws Kai 
Ta AowTa TOU evayyeALTMOD* Kal Tas OK 
elmés pow TOTE THY ToLavTyHY aitiav; OmeEp 
viv Bdrérwory (sic) oi ddvvnpoi pov opOad- 
mot, TA GueTpa Bacava TOU movoyEevoUs ov 
viovd. las tore ovK elrés pot Tov adikov 
Oavatov Tov yAUKUTaTOV Kai jovoyEevous 
pov viod; mas TéTe ovK eElm@és ot THY 
mapovcday mov Kal amapauvOnrov Ore ; 
TOs TOTE OVK Elrrés po” TOY GyeETpOV 76- 
vov kai Tpdmov tis TEeAAtuméevns pou Wu- 
xis Kai kapSias; mas Tére ovK clés por 
Tov avexduyyntov Kai TePAypéevov (sic) 
X@piopov Tov ayamrynToOD pov viod, Kai 
THY oTépnow Tav. éoKoTicuévwy jou 
bG0adrApn@v ; mas TéTE OK eimés pov (sic) 
THY wavmiBovAov [mwaveriBovAov ?] twapadw- 
ow Tov viod mov mapa TH SoAiw Prdyjuate 
Tov Tapavdépov ‘lovda, Tov waOyTov Kai ém- 
BovAov ; Kvpte, cAenoov:* mas Ga; Kvpte, 
éAenoov ** was avamvéw ; Kipte, éAénoov * * 
Tas oi TepAwpévor [rerUpAWLMEVOL] ov Kal 
éoxotiapévot oPOadpoi BA€rovar tocaita 
Bacava tov yAvxutTarov mov Kai omAayxu- 
Kov mov viod; Kvpte, éAénoov:* ris év 
Tagyn TH oiKoumévy elxev ToLOVTOUS mévOUS 
Kai evpe0% (sic) karagBéoat mov Tos ToLOv- 
Tovs BapuTatous mévovs Kai ortevaypmovs 
TOU XwWPLTLOV TOD fLovOyEVvOUs pov viov ; 
Oipoe oipot, vie wou maydidrare* Tod Ka- 
Tadvyw } mov mpocdpauw; oipot, Téxvov’ 
Kat mwas gavicouat tois avOpwros THs 
tocavtTys Avmnevys Kal mapatovenéevns 
(sic) ; ri eixwv [elxov?] Aéyecy Kad’ éavT@v 
Umép éué; olor’ atity éativ Tov TéSuvos 

_ Kexptvomevou (sic)* Smep (sic) éxadetTo Ba- 
atdevs Kai vids Tod Oeod. Oipor, vie pov 
yAuKitate* Tas éxw wh wvycOivar Tis 
GuéTpov Kal omAayxvixns god aydmns: 


Tére éBonoev 6 "Inoots puri peyddn déywr * 
dpaptiay rabrny* ob yap oldacw rl roodow of 40X01. 


ACTS OF 


PILATE. Bs 


GAX’ Ews Oavatov EoTwoay év éuol Avrn, 
Oris, mévor, Saxpva Kal oTevaypol amapa- 
eUOnTA* Kal ovK éoTLV, Vie mov, aAAn 
mapnyopia é€v éuot ovdeuia, Ore apte 
BArérw, xwpiGomar amd god: Kat Ao.roy, 
vie mov, amoPavodmat Kayo aua aiv coi: 
kai €AOéTw, Séouai gov, vie, 6 apxayye- 
Aos TaBptydA 6 Sacas mot mparov TéTe xa- 
pav, kat guvGevger Thy Wuxyv pov peta 
gov. Kai iorapévyn cai ddupoméevn 4 Oeo- 
TOKOS Kai BAémovoa mpds Tov vidy adTis 
Tov movoyevy, mad Expate dwvy pmeyddAn 
Aéyovga* vie mov, vid pov. Téte orpa- 
eis mpds THY wynTépa 0 “Ingois Kai idev 
THY myTépa Kat Tov "Iwavynv ioraduevov 
wAngiov avras Kai KAaiovta meta THY Aot- 
TOV yUvatK@v, Kal elmev mpds THY OeoTd- 
kov 6 “Ingots: Tvvar, idov. 6 vids cov. 
"Erecta hyo mpds tov “Iwavynv: idov 
n eATHNP cov. ‘H && OeotdKos KAaiwv 
éxpavyagey Aéyouga* da TOUTS oe KAaiw, 
vié mov, Sudte oe wapédwKay of mapdvomoe 
*Iovdatoe eis muxpdvy Odvarov, ws éxeivor 
oi TeTupAwmevor vowigovy (sic)’ aAAd 6 
Odvatés gov, vié pov, ayios Kai Sixatds 
é€oTiv* Kal gwrynpla Tov Kécuov SAov ev= 
piaOyjcetar. Kai mpds eué madw dAdyw* 
xwpis gov, vie pov, Ti eyo yevyjcouat ; 
€xTés Gov TAS GCyow; moTamyv Broryv de- 
d&w ; mov ot wabntai gov ot Kavxwmevor 
cuvaTroOvyicKev gol; mod ot mapa cod 
iadévres; Kat mpds tov oravpdy ado- 
poaoa édrAeyev* KAivov, oTaupé, iva meptAa- 
Bovoa Tov vidv pov, Kal Katabidjow ta 
omAdyxva yov, Ta Hv¥AAa THs Kapdias 
ov, dv év Tots pacbots TovTos £evorpé- 
Twas, ws pn avdpa yvodca, €OyjAaca* KAC- 
vov, otavpé, Bovaoméevy To diATaTw pov 
vi@ mepiTAaknvat’ KAtvov, oTauvpée, iva 
T® TOPELVOTATW MOV VLW WS MITHP CUYTA~ 
far [cvvtdgwpat] Kai KatadiAjaw. Ilod rd 
KGAAOS GOV, Vie MOV WpaLdTaTE; TOV Gov 
oi [n] edmpéreca, 6 wpaios mapa Tois viois 
Tav avOpwrwv ; ovK exes idos [eidos] ode 
KdAAOS, yAuKUTaTEe Vié* UTO XELp@V Tapa- 
vouwv Aowrov. civ got amobavovpat. 
Taira axovcavtes of "lovdalor mpocedAOdv- 
tes édiwtav aithy Kal Tas yuvaixas Kai 
Tov “lwavunv wakpav. 


Mi ornoys avrois ri 
"Errecra Aéyer* Supa. 


Kai ev@vs fdpaper els dard trav orpatwrav’ Kal KaBaw ombyyov Kal mdijoas 


24 ACTS OF PILATE, [§ 11. 


avrov kat Oels él xaddmov éwérifev airév’ Kal yevoduevos otk HOehev 
aetv. Ol 6é “Iovdatoe icrdpevor cai Bdérovres xarayéhwy [Kkareyédwr] 
airov kal édeyov* é€ay ddyOGs Edeyes Ore vies el Tod Oeod, KxaraBynOe awd 
To0 cravpod, kal mapevOds va micrevowpev els oé, “Erepor Eheyor karaye- 
AGvres * dAdNous Ecwoev, dddous EOepdmrevoev Kal idoaro, doGeveis, mapahe- 
Auuevous, empovs, Satuovegoudvous, Tuprovds, xXwods, vevexpwuevous, Kal 
éavrov od Sivarat Oeparedoat woatrws. Kal 6 é& r@ dpiorepp méper 
écravpwuévos Anorhs mpds avrov eeyev* ay rod Oeod vids el.) kardBnOe 
kal cGocov Kat éavrov2 kal quads. "“Ovoua alte fv Tyoras. ‘O dé && 
deka eoravpwudvos AyoThs, dvipare Avowas (sic), kal cveldrgev tov av- 
Tov Anorhv Aéywr' & raralmwpe cal doe, ov PoBy tov Gedy; *Huels 
diva bv [Gv] émpdtauev éwdOouev* odros bé mdvrws ovdéy Kakov émoinoer 
ovre éxrpatev. Kal orpadels otros éx de&cav Anorhs mpocepwver Kal ever 
apes Tov “Inoodv* pvioOnri pov, Kktpee, Srav @Oys év TH Bacrrelg cov. 
'O 52 "Inoods elrev air@’ duhv Néyw cor, ohepov meT Euod Eog EV TH 


mapadeiow. 


“Axovoate 5 kat erépav dupynow mepre 
(sic) tovTov. Tov éx Sef@v Anorod. Eis 
Thy yévynow Tod Xprorov, 6 éatw els Ay’ 
xpovov, Stay gwvh e€7AVev vd ayyéAov 

“a » s o » * x s . 
T® "Iwond, iva ape (sic) To Bpépos Kat 
THY wNTEpa avTov, THY brepaytav SéomTot- 

rd s > ’ A > ’ 
vav Ocordxov, kat c&éAOwouv THs “lovdaias 
‘Iepovoadym (sic), ToU Umdyeww mpds Atyv- 

= ‘ . id “” « 4 a 
mrov Sua Tov ddBov Tov ‘Hpwédov+ orav 
@pirev iva amoxteivwow OAa Ta evptoKd- 
eva Bpébyn amd Tpr@v éT@Y Kat KaTwOev 
> * * -~ 7 Ld , 
acdddAtws (sic). tTodto S& dAov yéyover, 
tva amoxteivwor Tov Inoovv Xproror, 
Tore mapayyetAduevos (sic) 6 “Iwan map’ 
ayyéAov TovTov ToLnoat, yyayev TO Bpé- 
gos Kat Thy pyTépa avTov, Kai HAPEv mpds 
thv Alyumrov. dvos S€ ovvtpéxwr met’ ad- 
Tois éva map eva Baordgew ev TH Oba. 
Kai tAyng.aoas ev TO TOT THS Aiyv’rrov, 
é€meivacav aua Iwond kat  Oeordxos - 
Kai eVO0s Oewpody (sic) dowrkiay® Kapm- 
pov Kal mavu wpaiav. eita Aéyer H OcoTd- 
kos* KAtve, Sevdpov pov Kaddv, kat xapt~ 
gov nuty €x TOU God wpaiov KapTov. Kai 
feta TOD Adyov av’Tns Td Séevdpov ExAcvev 
evOus, Kat éAaBav (sic) amd TOD Kaprod 

> iol o ” »” > * 
avrov Saov éxpigay [éxpynsav] éadi- 


ew kat wéAw 7d Sevdpov torato Somep 
To mpétepov. eita wdevoy mad Thv 
oddv, Kai Suepxdmevor peexpov Eéumpocber, 
éovvavtncav (sic) TovTov Tov AporTod, 
Hyouv Tod Avowd. kai idwv 6 Anoris Thy 
Ocotéxov, e&éoTn TOD KaAAOVS adTHS ws 
aotparnv Adumovcay éK TOD OVpavov, Kpa- 
Tav (sic) kai To Bpédos Tov atHPovs ad- 
THs. Kai 6 Anorns ckeotw [éééorn] maduw 
Tov Oavmaros, Kal mpoonAPev mAnciov Kai 
Tpovekvvyngev avTHv, mH ywwwooKovTos (sic) 
ott n OeotoKos eoTivy. Kal A€yer & ANaOTHS 
THs OeoTéKov (sic)’ pa Thv ad7jOerav Ku- 
pias » [et?] yap elxov 6 beds pmavva, 
cimeity elOcAa [7OeAa}] Ore od el. Kai 
Tpocekadéoato avTnv meta TOV "Iwand év 
T® OikKw avTod mpocedOeiv, kai Hyayev av- 
Tovs €v To Oikw avTod* Kat mapédwxev 
aitovs TH yvvatki avrov: ‘yvat, eyo 
trayw eis TO KUYHyN (sic)’ Kat ob dtdro- 
tévycov avrods boov Sivacat mornoar TL 
uyv, ews ob otpadjowpar Kayo €x TOD 
Kuvyyiov’ Kat SvopOdconev evyevertarny 
Tinnv THs &évys TovTHs (sic) Kal evyevns 
(sic) OTe Kata TO datvdpevov amd evyert- 
KwTaTns yeveas umapxe. ‘O S€ Anorhs 
arndGev Tod Kurnyjoat gaa, wowep Hv 





! The original reading was }v, which has been altered to ef in the MS. — H. 


2 ceavrov. — H. 


8 Or dowwixatav. The original is obscure, and permits either reading. — H. | 


Se 


§ 12.] 


waOnmévos (sic), elxev 52 0 abtos Anorhs 
kat matdiov idtkév Tov (sic), Kat iv Ae- 
mpov éx yevvycews. HTov (sic) Kal avypy- 
vevrov (sic) jyovv ov GAws Exavev Tod 
kAaiew, 1 S& yur éxdvyn [éxeivy] Tod Apn- 
orov éroingev Oepudv ToD Aovaar Td Bpé- 
gos tis OeotdKov. Aovoapéevov (sic) dé 
mpdotepov To matdiov “Incovv’ Kai éx Td 
broviuatos (sic) tod "Invod Edovcev Kai 
To maidiov avtns To Aempdv. Kai evOuUs 
7d madiov éxeivoy (sic) éajynoev [éviyn- 
aev] Tov KAaiew, Kai idOy THs AEempdTy- 
Tos Kat mavToias vécov avTov, €éA@dvTos 
Sé tov Anorod éx« Tod Kuvyyeiou Ev TH OlKw 
avTov, olkovéunoay Tpamegav Kai éTipy- 
gav avriv* KaOnuevwy Sé ev TH TpamEegn 
kai écOidvtwv, éveOvu7yOn O ANoThs Tov 
matdiov avrov, kai elmev TH yuvatxi av- 
Tov* mov éotiv TO TéKvw (sic) HuaY; Kat 
elmev avT@’ made ev adnOeia, Ort, Kadus 
pov [wor] éemapyyyetAes, iva hidokevyco- 
pat Thy evyevnv! tavTHv* oixovéunoa Bep- 
pov va [iva] mAn* [rAjon? mAVv?] 7d 
Bpédos avris, Kabias Td otvynOes TOY Tal- 
Siwy* Kai éAovaev TO Bpehos adris, Kai 
€is TO amdAoVaMa TOD Viod a’THs EmAvVa 
To TéxvoV HuaV. Kai evOds idOn ard Tap- 
tos [mavtotas] vocov, ws elpntac* Kai ei- 
pynvevn [eipnvever] xdpite Oeov, Kai ovdé- 
mote mActov éeotpivyynoev (sic), ws ATov 
(sic) waOnuevor (sic). Kat Kata Td parvdue- 
vov as Soca, érouTy (sic) 9 evyerin (sic) évar 
(stc) xaptrwuévyn (sic), amo Oeod Tod vWi- 
aTov* Kai Sta THs ad’THs xapitos idOn Td 
Téxvov nuav. Kai mpocépepev éumpocbev 
To iadév madiov eipyvevov Kai xaporovdr. 


ACTS OF PILATE. 25 


Kai iday 6 Anorhs Td Téxvov avrod byret 
(sic), e€éaTn TOV Oavpatos, Kai elev ma 
Tov visorov, Sudte ovSev HKOVOY TOU KAal- 
ev avT® [avTd] ws wavTote, nvdunoa [évd- 
prca?] dre c&nAGev Ex TOU Kécpov. Kai 
Aourdyv Kaya voutgw ev ddnOeia, Ste érovTH 
(sic) 4 evyevn H Ed’ Huds EADoVGA va ExeL 
evxas moAAas amd Geov Tov UYLoTOV (szc). 

Kai mpocextvygey ab’tnv Kai éxapiotycev 
autis (sic) tAjota [wAciota]* Kai dep édv- 
veto (sic) émoteww (sic) de” adtijse wéxpe Kai 
éxaptépeTo (sic) év Témm THS Aiy’TTOU* Kai 
eis Tov Stayepwov (sic) adTns va EAON Ta- 
Aw eis thy ‘lovéatav, nyouv eis THv ‘le- 
povoadnm, & AnoTns éavvddevdev THY Oeo- 

TOKOV META TAONS TEPLXapias Kal TLLAS* 

ka. Umayevev (sic) Kat HTov (sic) mpdodos 

avTns* mept Tov BAcetwecBar avThv, ex Tov 

SoAiov tomou Kai TOvyxpou2 Kat dick [dvc~ 
KoAov]. Kai dtav émdAnciacav év tétw 

aya@ Kai evOet, Eroingev metavoray (sc) 

avTis, iva ortpépar cis Tov olkoy avTov. 

kal evxapiotngev aiThnv mavévTimov evxa- 
pioteiay Kal A€yet Tov (sic) » Tavaxpavtos, 

Uraye év eipyvy. Kat woTé Tov Karpov oTpé- 
Wee (sic) cov OédAw Tov miaOdv dv Eroinoas 

éd’ nuas. Kai idé Tov Tétvov (sic) AnoTHv 

6 tocavTa mpaéas Sta THs xXaptTos TOU 

éXejpovos Xpiotov Kat THs adTov pytpds * 

brep étragato a’tro* newOnv ev TovtTw, 

iva paptupyce: év TH CTAVPO aa aUY 
T® Xptoto. Kai elev ws elpytac’ pvi- 
aOnti pov, KUpte, Stay EAOnS Ev TH Bact- 
Aeia gov. Kai 6 ‘Ingods elmev aite emi 
T®@ [Td] mpoKkeimevov' aunv Aéyw got, F- 
Mepov met e€uov Eon ev T@ Tapadciow, 


Tére 6 Inoots xpdtas pwvn weyddyn elre* Ildrep, eis xetpds cov mapa- 
Oncopat TO wvetud pov. Kal pera rod dOyou dmémvevce. 


[§ 12.] Hv S¢ doel Gpa Extn, Kal TapavTixa, cero pos yap? 
eyéveTo peyas els THY yhv Atacav, woTEe TAS 0 KOoMOS 
eppi~e* Kal amo tod chodpod ceicpod éoxifovto al é- 
Tpal, HVolyovTO Kal TA pYnMEla TOV vexpwv, Kal TONG 
copata Tov Sixalwv nyépOncav: Kal éoxoticOn 0 HrALO0s, 





1 Sic, et supra semper povoyevod viod, quod non ducebam annotandum. — D. 
2 Sic, sed ita ut dubium sit «, quod etiam v esse potest. — D. 
3% Codex habet yap.— D. Vide Acta Pilati, B, c. 11, apud Tischendorfium. — A. 


26 ACTS OF PILATE. [§ 12. 


kal TO KataTrétacpa Tod vaod écyicOn pécov, Kal oKo- 
Tos éyéveto ef SAnV THY YAV Ews Opas évvarns. 

Kat rotrwv mdvrwv yevouévew ol pev “Iovdaioe poBybévres Lot peév abrav 
Greyov’ “Ore bvTws 6 dvOpwros obros Sixaros Fv. Aovyyivos 6 éxarébvrap- 
xos lorduevos pera mappynoias elrev* “AnOGs Oeod vids Fv odros. “AXot 


Epxduevoe kal dpdvres atrov xararimrovres Ta orHOn airav kal amo rod 
PbBov aidis éorpépovro dricbev. 


¢ is 2 t \ a / 7 
O S€ éxarovtapyos Ta ToLadTa Tavta Oavpata KaTa- 
/ \ ; 
vonoas amedMwv eis tov TIiidtov sunynoaro radra. 
¢ \ > 4 , nr 
O dé axotcas eavwace Kai é&errayn, Kal amo ToD 
> n \ n / a C=» £ b , a 
poPov avtod Kal THs AUTNS TH Hepa exelvn hayew 7H 
a > / ‘ s 
muetvy ovk NOEAnce. Ateunvicato dé, Kal HAOev Sov TO 
, > 4? @ , 
auvedpiov, ah od SéBn TO oKoTos* Kal eime— mpods Tov 
\ e / 
Aaov—o ITiNaros: EHidete, wHs cevopos péyas éyévero; 
a / Qn 
eldete TAS eoyicOn TO KaTaTéTATHA TOU vaod pécoV; 
t ral | el U >? eo. \ > , > \ 
eldeTe TS EyéveTo oKOTOS eh OANY THY oiKoUmevnY aTrO 
LA x4 v4 ¢ > / ” >. & n 
@pas €xTns ws pas éevvatns; "“Ovtas eyo Kadas 
¥ a X \ bd > a a 
mowov [oly] tov Kadov avOpwrov ovdauas hovedoat 


mpocOvujovpnv. 


"Axovowpev 5é Kal mept THs mapTupias 
Atovuvaiov tod “Apeorayitov: hv? dmodd- 
ynoev (sic) év TH xopa adTod dvo~a apeov 
mayos (sic) mepi Tov yeyovdros Kat dpt- 
KToU Oavmatos TOV GKOTOV TOUTOV TOV ‘ye- 
vow.evov év SAN TH oikoumévy Thy ayiav 
éxeiynv juépay Tod mafovs Tov Kvupiov 
Hav "Incod Xptotod: obtos ody 6 Atovv- 
oLos, 6 UTepueyioTos Kai OavuacrTds didAd- 
godos kat SidacKados tav didogddwr, 
ismv Ta Tocadra onmeia ev Th Nmépa 
éxeivyn Kai tas év moAAn Suvdmer Tapaxas 
Kat TOD ToLovTOV yevapuevou (sic) oKdTOV 
ep’ SAnv Thy yRv Ths oixovpéryns, evOiS 
peyadoddvws Kat évwimiov mavTds Tov 
Aaod elmev* apxovtes, év adnbeia Aéyw 
tuas (sic)* Trodto To oKdtos Smep HAOev 
éd’ nuads, Kal mapndAGev Td has evavTiws 
THs d¥oews TOD HAiov mapTUP® Kat yrw- 
oeaGe mavtTes TovTw (sic)* OTe H ev omaby 


[waOer?] eariv 6 vids Tod Oeod & Aeydmevos 
Xpioros, } 0 Kécmos bA0s améAerat (sic) * 
Kai oUTws abtds vojoas Umd THis pmeyloTns 
metpas THS avTov SidacKadreias. Kal meTa 
TPlLaV ETOV META TadTa THs avTov Aady- 
Geis [AaAnPeions] Smodroyioews [dm0A0y%-- 
gews], obTos 6 Avoviaros da THS XapLTOS 
Tov mavayiov mvedmatos émiarevoev eis 
Tov KUptov nuov “Incovv Xpuicrdv, Kai 
eBartiotny [éBarticOn] eis TO SvOMa avd- 
Tov, Kat mAeiaTouvs aAAovs edidagev Kai 
éBanricOnoav eis TO Svoma adTov, Ocov 
Tov aAnOivod "Incod Xpiorov. TéAos mav- 
Twv peta THs e&ddov adTod, Hyovy meta 
Tov @Oavatov avTov, avTos 6 Atovictos 
nevbOnv (sic) kai ToAA@Y Oavpatwv évepyn- 
Ts, eis BeBaiwow THs OpOAs migTews TOU 
Kupiov Kai owrhpos nuav “Inood Xpiorov~ 
Kal émt TO mpokecimevoy éraveAOwmev TaV 
ayiwy radar. 





I of wey avray addit codex. — D. 


2 hv. —H. 





§ 13.] ACTS OF PILATE. 27 


e Le! / \ , > > / 
Oi Sé Kakovpyot mdavtes TO cvvoXOY OvK éETioTeEvO?Y, 
GAA parXov Ereyov mpds tov IIiddtov, dts TO ToL0d- 
fal / ” a ¢e / >? \ \ 
tov [rowdtTo] oKoTos Exrenfis Tov HALov éoTl, Kalas 
a e 
éyéveto kal év érépois Kxaipots. Kal o IIiNaros déyet 
> A 4 > a ? a \ 4 7 lO & eg 
avtav [avTois|* €¢ ToUTO TO aKOTOS ExdeLrLs TOD Lov 
éotlv, womep AéeyeTar [AéyeTe?], Kal Ta érepa éEalova 
\ \ 4 / / > \ > 3 / 
Kat ppixta Oavpata Ti réyeTe civar; Kal OvK ElxyoV TL 
atrodoynOjvat. 


Kal raira déywv obros (sic) mpocedOdvres of "Iovdatoe Kat (sic) elroy 
T@ IliAdtw* ov Kad@s éypddycav, Kipié mov, TA Ypdumara dvwhev Tijs 
Kepahfs Tod “Inood* paprupodcw yap atrov Baciléa tudv > ia Todro 
SebucOd cov, iva dpicns Kal ypadet [ypadetv]! éexeioe Bre obros elrey Bre 
éort Baoiheds t&v "loviaiwy. “Edn airéy (sic) 6 IktAdros+ 8 e&ypaya, 
&ypaya. Elra Aéyovew air@: iets Exwuev [Zxouev] rhv éoprhy trav afu- 
pov dia THs avfprov Hucpas, Kal wapaxadoduér ce, érel re mvéovow ot écrav- 
pwuévor, wa Karaxdhac@Go. Ta dora atray, kal xaraBiBacbdow. Liev 
6 Ilidros* otro yevjcerar. ‘Améorei\ev civ orpariuiras, Kal ebpov 
ére mvéovras Tovs NynoTas, kal cvvéO\acav air&v Ta oKédXyn. Tov 5é “Inoody 
evpovres TeOvnxéra Kal ovdauds airod Hwavro. Tére dmedOcw els orpa- 
Tidrns Kal éddyxevoe tov ‘Incoiy év rH Seéi@ adrod mdevpg, kal evOéws 
é&pev alua Kal dwp. 

Kal émdnpw0noav of Aéyor rv rpopyrav. ‘Tepeulas elev > Sedre éu- 
Bdd\wyev Eddov eis Tov dprov avrod* Kal éexorpépwuev adrov ard yas fav- 
Tw * kal Td bvoua adrod ob wh prnoOp ere [éri] * Kipre Trav Suvduew, 
Kpwor dixkaca. Zaxaplas elrev* xal €orynocay rov picbdv jou TpidKovTa apyu- 
plots. ‘“Hoatias elrev> riv vérov [vdrév] mov edwxay els pdorvyas* ras 
6é ciayovas pou els parricuara (sic) 7d d€ mpdowrdy pov ovk drborpepa 
(sic) dd alcxtvns alumrvoudrwv: [€umrvepdrwr]* Kal Kipios éyayundn 
[éyev70n] BonOds wov. Kal wddw 6 adrds elrev: ws mpdBarov éml cda- 
Yiv 7xXOn, Kal ws duvds axaxos evavtiov rod Kypavros [xelpavros] avrév, 
olrws Adwvos ovK dvolye: Td oréua aitod &v TH Tarewdoe airod* 7h Kpl- 
ois avrod HpOer [4p0n]* ri Sé yevedy adrod ris dinyhoera, Sre alperar 
ard rijs yas  fwh adrod. Kal dorov érrnpwOnoay viv of Néyou Tov 
mpopyntayv, Kalas kal mpoelrouev. [Compare p. 10.] 


[§ 13. | II pos éomrépav dé ris TAPACKEVAS KavTavTwons ’To- 
aonb Tis avnp evyevns Te Kal TAOVCLOS, — beoceB's — Iov- 





1 Sic, ut videtur, pro ypadet (in fine linez) ze. ypadew. —D. 


28 ACTS OF PILATE, 


(§ 18, 
Saios, eipwv tov Nixddnuov, dv mpodOdcas 6 Adyos 
edyjrwoe, Néyer adT@ olda Stet Cavta tov “Incoby 7ya- 

\ ‘ U > ” eos ” 4 
mas, Kal Tovs AOyous avTov Hdéws Feoves* Kal pos 

\ > Mi sor , e \ > fel > 
tovs “Iovdaious eldov ce payopuevoy tTép avTod- et S0- 
ket cot odv, TopevOauev pos Tov IIiNadtov Kai aitno@- 
pe0a To c&pya Tod “Incod mpos tadiyv, dre Kal peyddy 
éotly duaptia xeicBar avtov atadov. Aédouxa, réeyer 
6 Nixddnpos, pyres opycbévtos tod Iitdtov wai mada 
, > O\ AN ’ > \ \ 9-6 : 

tT. xaxdv* ef S€ od povos aTwedav cai aitncas Aas 
tov TteOvnxdéta, TOTe Kay@ cuvodedcw cot, Kal Ta Tmpos 


xndiav [xndeiav] émitndecca wavta cvvdvarrpafopat. 


Tavra ecimévros trod Nixodjov, 6 “Iw- 
ond arevicas cis Tov odpavdy rods d>8aA- 
pods, Kai airnoduevos ph Stauapricat 
[Scapaprica] THs aitycews, awnAGe mpos 
tow I[liAdrov- xai mpocayopeticas éxabé- 
oOy. elra gnciv mpds airoy pera Sa- 
xptwy+ Séomai gov, xipié mov, et TL mapa 
Td doxovv TH MEyaActéTyTi Gov airjromat, 
py dpy.o@qvai po. ‘“O S& éby* cai ri 
éorw 6 aireis; Acyet 6 “lwoid: “Incovr 
tov févov troy Kxaddby avOpwrov, oy vr 
$06vov [oi] “lovdator! xarjveyxay eis Td 
oTavpacat, TO Capa ToVTO GéAw, Tapa- 
Kad, iva des por mpds tadiyv~ S65 mor 
TovToy tov févoy, iva tov ~évor TovTor 
xydevow. S65 got TovTov Tow fevoy, wa 
tow éy (sic) févqs xapas Gvra xydeiow Tov 
févov +? S65 wot TovTov Tor Févow Sov (sic) 
6 "Iovdas 6 “Ioxapiétys TovTow Tov févor, 
avroy éwapédwxey (sic) Tois “Iovdaiors adi- 
ces: S65 por tovrorw tov févov, Srov ® 
mairnp adrov ob« Hew [elyer] aAAoy odder 
(sic) 865 pot todTor tov févoy, wa xy- 
Sevow abrov tow fevoy meta kAav@uod xai 
bdupunod~ S65 pot TovTow Tov févov, iva 
ds 3 Eévos rovrous ob Exer adeAddy Huei * 
Tovs pabyTras abrov: S65 wow rovToy Toy 
févov, Sov cai oi wabyrai abrov édvyor, 
xai ovx jw Kay (sic) tis xydedoat TovTor 


tow gévoy- S65 woe TovTow Tov févov, iva 
Tov "Incovv pov xydeiow. S65 wor TOvTOP 
Tow €évov 5 row viby THs Mapias «ydevow. 
36s mot TovToy Tov gévov, Sov oi “lovdaior 
avroy katexactiywoar* S65 wor TOUTOY TOY 
févov, Gov Tods vexpods avéatncer* Sd 
ow TouToy Tow févov, Srov Tods Aempo’s 
éxabdpnoer [éxabapicev]+ S65 mot Tovroy 
Tow fé€vov, Grov Trovs Saimovas amwéAacer* 
S05 ow TovTow Tow sévowv, Ste dca Tow GG- 
Bov avrod <[ai] rérpar aicxioOnoar [écxi- 
c@ncay]: S65 pot Tovroy row févov, Ore 
da Tov G6Bor® Ta prijpara qvegXOnoay~ 
S65 oe TovTow Tow Eévorv, Swov Tow “Adam 
oiv mpodiras avéorncey: S65 pot TovTOY 
Sas stab asy¢0etod aa 
$6Bor abrov é 7x79 (sic) €is ieee 
TovToy Tov mrwydy Kai wivete” 

7) gama Tov TeOvyxdéTos, iva TOUTOY KaTa- 
diAzjow év TH aroxwpyion mas [mov]> Ste 
éxeivos kaya wAciora Hyawovmeba (sic) 
S65 ot Td cwpma Tov "Incod pov, iva xa- 
tadiAjow Thy TAnynY THS axpayTou mAev- 
pas adrov: dupycai mot tovToy Toy ve- 
xpdv, iva AdBw avrdoy caraxaAvwat Thy 
yaw (sic)- Supyrai mot Td TpLTMaKdpLoTOR 
capa, orep vexpovmevov H «tiow; érévOn- 
cev’ Sapncai pot cama, Swep arorvéor 


6 vads Gcacdmevos mepiécxicey TO EavTOU — 





2 Sine oi. — D. 


2 Additur in margine Sov thy cedaddy x\jjvot ov« Exn, sic. — D. 


3 Sic, cum spatiolo unius litere. — D. 
5 Sine iva. — D. 


4 Sic hec omnia. — D. = Ca 
6 Sine a’rov. — D. 








@ncavy Ta tTpavmatas YyAadyow Thy 
éxeivyy Kai ayiay mAcupay, ad’ 
js pap ake aiua rai wp dvayevvy- 


HOeAov AaBeiv Thy BagrAciay Tov Kaicapos, 
kai of'tw map’ jmar eis Odvatov éxdo0erra - 


Sacas Gore mH cravpwhjvar Tov “Incovv: 
méca mpds Tois “Iovdaiovs vmép av- 
‘elas, Ta ev wapawav, ta dé cai 
Ovuovmevos* Kai torepov, Tas Tas xEipas 
amévupas, Kai pydaums Exew mépos ame- 
€GcAGvTwv aroxravOjvat 
Gmact Séomai gov un 


iryepey adroy A€ywrs ambi, xapifouat 
gow ToY TOLOUTOY vexpdy, Kai ToUTOY AaBwy 
mparre Sea gor Bovaynta. Tore ‘Iwond, 


Gey xaipwv, TH xapSiq wiv xaipwr, as 
Td mwoPovpevov _(sic) Tuxev, Tovs 468ad- 
mods 58 dépwy Ere Saxpvovras: ovTw Kai 
Th 


ACTS OF PILATE, 


29 


[drecoww?] ody mpds Tov Nixddquoyr, Kai ra 
yevoueva wavta duacadet. dude 58 xaxei- 
vos evoeBns Kai yydwa tov ‘Incoiv, Kai 
elwe ToUT@ wayTa Ta TOU IliAdrov. ‘Efw- 
vycduevoe S@ cmupyyv cai addny, éxarov 
Aitpas, Kai prnucioy Kady, éxa@jAay 
[xa@eiAav?!] Td gama Kai (sic) ev add 
[ouwddve] AcvxH, Gua odv TH OcoTéxw Kai 
TH Maydadnvy Mapia xai TH SadAwuy civ 
Tt ‘Iwavvy Kai tats Aowrais yuvaréiv. 
Tovtor xndeioavres ws Bos ev TE Tady 
katéGevto. ‘H Sé @eotoxos npéato Opyvery 
Kai €Aeye KAaiovga* was ge KAatow, vid 
mov, Sewpav -(sic) ge adixws OvijoxKorta ; 
Tas Oewpw we GapKa mov; mas Gyow Xw- 
pis gov; Eide mpd cod amo@aveiv elxov. 
Oipoe olor vid pov, mod H eFoveia cov ; 
© Gas dupatwy pov, mas Urene_was Thy 
odayhy ta’Tnv; BH Miav mévyny, aAAa Tas 
moAAds. Iles odx améorecAas mip é€ od- 
pavod xataxavaat Tovs Iovdaious; ei yap 
Ovntis daivy dua thy Tav BpoTay owrTy- 
piay, add’ odpavod Kai yas months el. 
Tas ov Katecxic@n 6 otpavds Oewpay Toy 
Oavaréy gov tov adixov; evxapicTa, vie, 
TOU HAiov gov, dTe amnuavpwOny (sic) Kai 
THS yas, Ste ecxioOy Kai EfoBHOn* evxa- 
piora cas (sic) wérpar pov, ote écxiaOnre, 
iSev (sic) Thy avopiav tev ‘Iovéaiwy Kai 
Tov mixpoy Odvatoy Tov viod mov. mas ov 
ny ve Opynnjcw, vie mov; mas Td Endy 
mpdowmov ov omapatw Tots (sic) dvvéw ; 
Touro éxeivov (sic) éoriv, vie mov, drep 
Svumewy & mpecBitys mpocimé mor, STE ce 
TecoapaxovOyjucpoy Bpédos jyayov Te 
vao* avtTn éoTivy » poudaia, Aris viv 
Kata Thy Wuxyv pov scépxyeracs tis Ta 
éua Sdxpva, yAux’taré pov vie, xata- 
raven [kataravce]; wavtws ovdeis, ci uh 
av pévos, éav, Kaus elas, avacrices 
tpujnepos, “H Maydadnvh Mapia xdAai- 
ovea éAcye* axovcarte, Aaocl, PvAai, yAao- 
gat, Kai uaOere roiw Oavdtw oi mapdvo- 
mot “Iovdaioe éroincay ray mupiwy KaAA@y 
mpds avrovs merounxéta mapadedwxact.® 
dxovoate xai @avuacatre. Tis axovoTa 
woujoet TavTa mpds GmavTa Kécmov; ey 
év ‘Paxy udvyn mpds tov Kaicapa amedcv- 
womat* éyw TovTo SyAdcw, bcov Kaxdv 
6 TAadtos, tots mapavopnors “Iovdators m- 
Odpmevos, wémpaxey. ‘Qeavtws wdvpeTo Kai 





1 “ Tnvolverunt.’”? — D. 





2 Omnia sic. —D. 


30 ACTS OF 


6 "Iwond, Aéywv* oimor oiuoe yAvKUTaTe 
> 
"Inoov, €€ avOpimwv dire eFarowrate, et 
XP} ME Kal avOpwrov dvopdgev oe, Tov 
ola ovdémore memoinkey avOpwros Oavmata 
épyagduevoy. mas ce kndevow, Océ pov; 
Tas oe évtadiaow, hidavOpwre ; viv edee 
MOL TUmMapeEivat Os ev dALyoLs apToLs EFE- 


PILATE. [§ 13. 


OpeWas* ovTw yap obk av ébota ris agias 
amodvrovmevos [amoArovmevos].  OvTw 
5é Kai “Iwavvns Kai ai yuvaixes wdvporTo. 
elra 6 péev Iwond peta rod Nuxodipov 
émopevOnaav eis TA idta* Smoiws S& Kai 
n OcordéKos peta TOY yuvatKOv cupTapdv- 
Tos Kat Tov ‘Iwdvvov adrais. 


Taira f t “Tovdai é i 
yvwpicavtes ot Iovdaiot tpaybévta rapa Te 
5) I \ \ “We Ss 5 , Pa Q b) We 
acnp Kai Tod Nixodnov, érapayOncav Kat avTov 
\ A as 
peyaros, Kai Staunvucduevos TH "Iwonh of apxuepers 
” Ss tal 
"Avvas te kat Kaiadas eirov attd: Ava ti émoincas 
\ ee r 2 nA a ? an / 9 
Thy. Knoelav TavTnV éTTL TO vexp@ ‘Incod; Aéye "lo- 
/ > \ S \ ? A 
onp* “Eyo oida tov “Incody dvipa Sixatov, adnOiwov 
kal aya0ov Kata Tdvta, Kat oida twas bt ato POdvov 
y \ 7 a 
@Kovouncate Tov Povov avTov: Kal év TovT@ éKndevTa 
/ / > . : A 
avtov. Tote opyioGévtes of apyepeis Kal KpatnoavTes 
> \ ” Uj 
tov Iwonp €Badrov [€Barov] avtov év tH duvrakh kab 
> ww > \ 
Aéyouow avT@’ Ei pr avpwv Kal oe, ws exeivov, épo- 
vevoapev av: TO dé viv Exov Tnpovpevov (sic) TH bé KU- 
praxn mpwt Cavat@ trapadoOjcn. LEirov tabra, cal ri 
etpxTnv TH ohpaylds érnpetwoavTo, KrElOpois odoav Trap 
Toiots §=jnopardiopevny. 
Tére “Iwond kai Nixddnmos peta “Iw- 
dvvnv (sic) kat Tav yvvatkav éxdavTo 


komerov péya [uéyav]. Kal evpev (sic) 
T Tadw, xatébevto, émopevOn 52 "lwand 


kai Nuxddnuos eis tra tdra.  Sé Oeo- 
TéKos émopevOn peta Tov “Iwdvyny, Kat 
FASov Kai ai yuvaixes pet’ aditis mpds 
T mapadoOncar (sic) adrév. 
Ottw tolvuy ths TapacKkevns Terecbelons, TO caB- 
is Tapackevh} "Ss TG 
aA. > n e ’ an QA \ 

Bato tmpwt amjrdov ot ‘Iovéaio. mpos tov. Iinatov 
\ 3 > A c / > a ” a >. ov 
Kal elroy avT@* oO TAavos Exeivos ETL Cav eElmrev OTL 

/ ; e 
peTa Tpels nucpas eyepOncerar* pnta@s ot paln- 
\ > nr \ /  * \ / 
Tal @vToU vuKTOS KAEeYayTes AUTOY Kal TAAYHTwOL 
Ld / 
Tov adv éml TowovT@ rwWevder, Kédevoov, SeoueOd cov, 
‘O ITidtos .obv emi 
TTPATLOTAS ov 


tal \ / > fa) 
tnpeicbar tov tTapov avrod. 


ToUT@ GdwKey avTois TevTakog ious, 








§ 14.] ACTS OF PILATE. 31 


‘ / al 
kar éxdOnoav [éxdOicav] ert tov tddov, date Typetv 
avtov: Oéwevor kal odhpayidas trdv AlOov Tod pryjma- 
Tos, éfvAaTTov avTov Tw (sic) adBBatov, ews dpOpov 
Babéos rijs xupiaxfs. Mera todto cevopos madu éyé- 
veTo péyas TpOTov, eitTa ayyedos Kuplov aatparnpdpos 
€Mav é& ovpavod éxidice Tov AiOov ex TOV pvjpaTOS, 
Kal éxdOicev errav@ avTod: aro (sic) 5é Tov ayyédou 
dmevexpoOncav of otpatiatat. Tote avéctn 0 Kuvptos* 
” \ ’ \ / \ / A ey 
Hyepe Tov “Addu Kal mavras to’s mpodytas, ods eixev 
e 4 > n \ > nA 4 \ > n 4 
6 didBoros ev TH yelpl avTov, Hyeipe Sé KaKel TavTas 
Tovs mucTevovTas eis avTOD. 


Ein 7d évoua Kupiov evrAoynuévov viv Kal det Kal eig TOS aimvas TaY 
oiv TS Tatpi aitov Kai To Tavayiy mvev- aidvwv. anv. 
pare 


Tédos trav ayiwy maddy cal dpxn Tijs 
dvacrdcews abrod, Tov Kuplov nuav "Incou Xpicrov. 


[§ 14] THs xupiaxhs obv Siapwoxovons cvpBovdv 
érroincav ot apyvepets peta THV ‘Iovoaiwy, Kal améoTte- 
> n \ > \ > A A > a," a 
av éxBanetv tov “Iwand exe Tijs gurakhs ér7t TO Oava- 

nr > > / e t dir 
TacaL avTov: avoiéavTes 5é ovy eUpov avTov Kal ékevi- 
fovto él TovT@, Tas TOV Ouvpav KeEKreELcLEVwV, Kal 

, fa) a \ = / ¢e fal > 
THWV TOV KAELOOY, Kal TOV ohpayidwv evpeOecadv, Iw- 
and dé éyévero apavtos. “Emi tovtm dé raparyevope- 
vos els oTpaTiwTns EK THY THpovYTwY TOV Tadov eiTrev 
’ Lal A / v4 > / e¢ 3 6 , 
év TH ouvaywyn’ Maéete, ote aveotn 0 Inoovs. Aé- 
yovow ot ‘Iovdators IIas; ‘“O dé fn: Sevopods pé- 
yas éyéveTo TMpwrov: eita ayyedos Kupiov aotpamnddpos 

J b a fa) 

eXOav ée& ovpavod éxvdice Tov AiMov Tod pvnpelov, Kal 
éxabicev errdavew avtod. Kai ao tod doBov avtod éye- 
voueba IWAVTES ot TTPATLOTAL — ws [dcel] vexpol, cal — ouvTe 
guyeiy eduvaweOa ovTe Aadjoat. ~Hrovcayev Sé Tod 





1 Sine émi vel alia prep[ositione]. — D, 


32 ACTS OF PILATE. [§ 14. 


>’ / / \ \ Sal \ 4 > Lal 
ayyéXov AeyovTos Tpos Tas yuvaixas Tas éEXOovcas éxeice 
Tov Ttadhoy toetv" 


"Ort uh poBetcbe pets: olda yap, Ore Tov “Inooby fyreire. Ovdx Eorw 
Gde* aN dvéorn, xadws mpoetrev ipiv. Kuware kal tare [vere] Tov 
tagov, Smrov éxerro TO cua Tod “Inood. 


ITopev@nte Sé. wat elitate trois pabntats avtod,) dre 
\ a he a 
nYyép9n amo THY vEexpav, Kal TopevécOwacay ev TH Tars- 
/ > a \ \ ¢ / fa 
Aaia: éxel yap avTov evpnaovot. Ata TovTO Aéyw Tpos 
Uuas €y@ TovTO TpOoTeEpor. 


Aéyovsw of “Iovdato. mpds tod’s orparubrass Tlotae hoay al yuvatkes 
ai €\otcat eis 7d prijua, Kal dari odx éxparnoatre airds; Aéyovow ol 
orpari@rat’ ‘Ex rod péBov Kal ris Oewpias wdvns Tod ayyédou ovre da- 
Aety obre carevew eduvdueOa.  Eimov ody of “lovdaiow* Zn 6 eds rov 
"Iopanr, dre ovdév micrevouer, Soov éyere. Aéyouow of orparidrar * 
Tocatra Oavuara €moincev 6 “Inoots, cal ovx émicretcate, Kal dpre méd- 
Aere mistevew Huiv; "ArnOGs déyere, Ste SH 6 Oeds, kat wvrws adAnOds 
&p Kal 6v duets eoravpdcare. IIAqv ovd« (sic) jxotoauer, bre Tov “Iwohd 
elxere év TH pvdaxy Kekhewopevov" elra dvolgavres ras Ovpas obx etpare 
avrév; Adore ov ipets Tov “Iwod, Kal otrw Sdoouer cal quets tov “Iy- 
cody. Aéyouow oi "loviatoe* Tov "Iwonp éx puvdraxis puydvra ebphoere 
avrov eis "Apimabiav? tiv xwpav at’rod. Aéyovor Kal of orpari@ra* 
"ArédOare (sic) kal tpeis els rhv Tadsd\alavy, xal edpjoere tov “Inoodr, 
KaOws 6 dyyerdos efrre rats yuvaikw. 


e an , 5 j 
"Emi rovrtos ot "Iovdaior doBnbévres eirov tots otpa- 
e cal A ‘ / 
tTiwtais* ‘Opate, iva pndevi TovTov Tov AOyor eElmNTE, 
b] > a ; 
kal wavtes Tictevcovow® ert Tov “Incodv. Ob ydpw 
” b a \ > 4 \ vA 7 ¢ al 
édwKav avTois Kal apytpia toAda, tva eit@ow: uov 
e a 
Kotmopévov HOov ot pabntal adtod Kal éxreWav ad- 
/ e \ a 5 / / 
Tov. Ov sé otpati@tat eirov: DoBovpeOa, pas 
> 4 e , e > / € a b 4 \ 
axovon o IIivdtos, Ste éAdBowev huets apryvpia, Kal 
n a 5 > 
dhovetoer* nuds. Oi dé "Iovdator eirrov: AaBere ava, 





1 In marg. add. e Marc. xvi. 7, kai to Ilétpo. —T. 
2 Scr. "Apipabaiav. — T, 8 Fort. morevowow. —T. 
4 Fort. dovevon. — T. 





§ 15.] ACTS OF PILATE. 33 


> / e n 7 , A / > 
Kat éyyvopucla nets, va Soowpev TO ITiidtw arodo- 

/ > i ¢ a = f ¥ x4 > n @ K \ + 
yiav avtl tuav: povoy elmate, Ort éexoipacbe. Kai éda- 
Bov oi otpati@ta: Ta apydpia Kal cimov Ka0as érapey- 

lA a 
yéerOnoav [rapnyyédAOncav]. Kal péxype tis onpepov 
e fal 67; ld / e \ ” ’ 
O ToLovTOS yrevdns Aoyos NéyeTat Ure Tols ’Iovédalors. 

[$ 15.] MeO ajpepas dé orlyas HAOov aro rhs Tar 
Aalas eis Ta ‘Iepocd\vpa avOpwrot tpeis. "Hv o eis 
e \ >? , / e iv4 ef. > , >] 
lepeds dvowate Piveés: o Erepos Aevirns dvoyuate > Ay- 

e , n 
yéos*! 06 8 adXos otpatiorns dvopats Adds. Odtor 
HAOov pds Tors apytepeis Kal elroy adTois Kal TO AaG* 
Tov *Incodv, dv ipeis eotavpwcarte, cidouev ev tH Tari- 
ala peTa TOV Evdexa palnTav avdTov Els TO dpos TOV 
éeraiav SudacKovta avtovs kal Aéyovta* TIopevOjre eis 
TavTa Kocpov, Kal KnpvEaTe TO evayyédov: Kal Oo TI- 
otevoas Kai BarticOn [Barrticbels| cwOjcetat, o Sé 
amurtncas KataxpiOnocetar. Kai tatta Réywv ave- 
Bawev eis tov ovpavov. Kal opaxapev [éwpaxaper] 
pees \ € “ \ v \ an / 

QUTOV Kal nets, Kal adAOL TOANOL TMV TEVTAKOTLOV 
érréxewa. | 

*Axovcavres Tadra of dpxvepets Kal ol ‘Iovdaioe etrov pds rods To.ovrous 
tpeis* Aédre dSdtav 7@ Oe@ Tod “Iopair, Kal peravojcare, ep ols Kara- 


Wevder0e. “AmexplOnoav of rpeis obror' Zy xipwos 6 Oeds Tav marépwr 
quav, Tod ABpadu, “Ioadk Kal “IaxwB, ob Yevddueba, aN GAnOGs dyiv 
Aéyopev. 


, 3g 7 > \ c b] \ \ \ bd a 

Tote éEwpxicev avtovs 6 apyvepeds, kal Sods avrtois 

ve onl 

apyvpia améoreisev avdtovs eis Erepov ToTrov, iva pi) THY 
avaotacw Tod Kupiov év ‘Iepocodvpous Kknpvéwow. 





1 Ser. "Ayyatos. — T. 


84 


ACTS OF PILATE, 


Although the Acts of Pilate, as originally written, cannot have 


extended beyond what has already been given, yet Mr. Duebner’s 


collation of extracts in Thilo, on pp. 628 — 661, is subjoined.. 


Page. Line of note. 


629 3 
“ce 7 
635 2 
éé 9 
637 7 
“cc 8 
“ 16 
639 15 
ée I ¥ 
644 #16 
650 12 
“ce 13 
it4 16 
ee 18 
iT 4 20 
655 8 
661 8 
“ce 9 
itd 17 


Thilo. 
oravpwcere.! 
A 
pydevi 
&KOVOAVTES 
“Apipabaiav 
a ‘ 
OTpaTiwTav [Kat | 
TOUT OMLEV 
éBovrAdpeba, 
pidav 
avTHV 
> 

€l7re 
a 
opw 

4 2 
oupomevov 
KpaTyoas 
‘Exuotpedov 
mpoxOes 
Svpeova 
»” 
éumpoobe 
€l7rav 


dAnGeva. 


Codex. 


pndev 

dKovoas 
“ApiparGiay 
oTpatwtav Kat 
TOUT WLEV 
€Bovrwpeba 
pirwv 

TAaUTYV 

eire 

6pa 


Kparn 3 
erro Tpaov 
mpoex bes 
Supedv 
éurpoo ev 
€lrov 


dAnOas 





1 gravpdéoere, quod notavit Thilo, a prima manu erat oravpwoere, ut 
legendum videatur cravpwonre. — D. 
2 Thilonis correctio cupduevov improbabilis est, quia codex perfectum 


testatur, éovxouévor. 
8 Pro xparet. — D. 


Melior nunc non succurrit. — D. 





ACTS OF PILATE. 35 


Concluding Remarks by Mr. Duebner. 


Habentur hzc paulo post initium columnz alterius folii 276 
recti. Supersunt columnz 12, quibus non opus esse significasti. 
Ceterum /o/ia quze dicit Thilo, non fagine ut scribis, sunt quat- 
tuor columnarum, quarum quzeque continet lineas 32 medii fere 
digiti longitudini zquales. Reliqua ex hoc codice edita contuli 


usque ad finem paginze 682 et bene relata esse vidi: quare ibi 
substiti. 


) 
b, 
: 
a 
7 
| 
q 
E 











< a * 
BS 
Att 


2 





we 


Hoek, 





THE © 


BELIEF 


FIRST THREE CENTURIES 


CONCERNING 


CHRIST’S MISSION TO THE UNDERWORLD. 


BY 


FREDERIC HUIDEKOPER. 


SEVENTH EDITION. 


NEW YORK: 
DAVID G FRANCIS. 
1887. 


= eee BE Coryricnt, 1854. 


‘ on 


By FREDERIC HUIDEKOPER. 


* 
~~ 
‘ee 
’ 5 - 
7 _ 
: a3 ie 
. 
” i 
- 2 
Fy 
} 
* f Ps a ™Y. a 
St fan he : 
— Y La 
s 2 
» a& ® : ' ii 
-= = & 


"i 






it 
or 
Ps 











PREFACE. 


‘Tue following treatise was commenced nearly three 
years ago, under the supposition that it could be finished 
in three or four days, and with no further intention than 
that of translating some passages on the subject of which 
it treats, as one evidence among many that the Gospels 
did not originate in the opinions of the Early Christians. 
It grew on the writer’s hands, led to investigations which 
he had not anticipated, and was delayed by other duties. 

The size to which it has grown is not, probably, dis- 


proportionate to the place held by its subject among 
_ early Christian views ; and if we are ever to have a satis- 


factory picture of their theology, it must be by giving to 
each feature its due proportions. The man who should 
treat of Millerism by ransacking its productions for every 
casual allusion to the Atonement, Original Sin, or Pre- 
destination, and should spread the result of his labors 
over volumes, while he barely hinted at a belief by the 
Millerites of the Second Coming, would give a very dis- 


____ proportioned picture of his subject. Yet such a picture 
would not be more faulty than many a portraiture of the 


early ly centuries. The writings of the Fathers have been 


searched for their opinions on points concerning which 


they scarcely thought at all, whilst subjects of great in- 
~ terest to them have been neglected. Such of their ex- 


lv PREFACE. 


pressions as could be made to bear on modern controver- 
sies have been extracted from their own systems of 


thought, and reconstructed into modern systems. The — 


process has resembled that of a man who should recon- 
struct the fragments of Grecian statuary and temples into 
crucifixes and Gothic churches, and should expect by a 
treatise on each fragment to convey a good idea of the 
original design. A reproduction of the original work 
would be simpler, and answer the purpose better. 

That a subject so prominent among the Early Christians 
as the Underworld Mission should have been passed by 
without a word, or with scarcely a word, by leading Ec- 
clesiastical Historians, is singular. The elaborately terse 
work of Gieseler does not allude to it. Neander, who is 
regarded as having penetrated deeply into the spirit of 
the ancient Church, has written what makes, in Torrey’s 
Translation, a large and closely printed volume, on the 
first three centuries. Of this, three hundred and twenty 
pages are devoted to Catholic and Heretical doctrines, 
without, I believe, any but an insufficient allusion to the 
Underworld Mission (Vol. 1, p. 654), and a mention of 
Marcion’s peculiarity (Ibid., p. 471), although the state- 
ment (Ibid., p. 641) that Christ gave himself to the Evil 
One as a ransom for mankind seems to require, in order 
to render it intelligible, some explanation concerning 
Satan’s Lordship over the Underworld, and Christ’s de- 
scent thither. Mosheim, Milner, and Priestley, so far as 
I have been able to ascertain by a cursory examination, 
do not mention Christ’s mission below in their respective 
Church Histories, though the first of these, in his copious 
Commentaries on the Affairs of Christians before Con- 
stantine, a work, in the original, of nearly one thousand 
quarto pages, casually introduces (Vol. 1, p. 495, edition 


4 





PREFACE. ‘Vv 


of Dr. Murdock) a mention of Marcion’s peculiar bias on 
the subject. 

The treatise apparently of most reputation as a history 
of Christ’s descent to the Underworld is by J. A. Dietel- 
maier, Historia Dogmatis de Descensu Christi ad Inferos. 
My efforts to procure it were unsuccessful. The few 
works or articles that I have seen on the subject of this 
treatise did not prove satisfactory. J. L. Koenig, in his 
Lehre von Christi Hoellenfahrt, pp. 260-268, has filled 
nine pages with the titles alone of Works, Articles, and 
Sermons on this subject. His work did not reach me 
until my own was nearly finished. An examination of 
the titles of some of the works which he has mentioned, 
and a perusal of occasional extracts from, or references to, 
others, convinced me that the mass of them would aid 


_ my investigations but little. Most of them I suspect to 


be written from a doctrinal point of view. If this sus- 
picion be correct, Christ's descent to the Underworld 
must in its most uninteresting shape, namely, as a point 


of doctrine, have occasioned an unusual amount of con- 


troversy, whilst its interesting and historical bearings 
have been overlooked. 

The belief by the Early Christians of their special ex- 
emption from the Underworld, effected by Christ’s descent 
thither, was to my own mind novel, and, as a point of 
history, interesting. Whether it will prove equally so to 
others, I do not know. 

My chief object in writing has been the argument for 
the Genuineness of the Gospels, in §XXV. The tone in 
which Christianity has frequently been defended must 
be my excuse for not thinking it superfluous to add, that, 
though I would deem no toil misplaced which should give 
men a deeper confidence in the supernatural character of 


vil PREFACE. 


Christianity, yet I hope that I should recognize mental 
superiority, appreciate moral worth, and feel attracted 
towards whatever was lovely in one who did not accept 
Christianity as a revelation, equally as in one who did. 
May I caution the reader who recoils from Church 
authority, not to go to the opposite extreme of judging 
the Fathers to be weaklings because they had not out- 
grown the errors of their times? He who should judge 
Julius Cesar by his account of catching wild beasts? in 
Germany, or Tacitus by his story of the Phoenix,? might 
readily under-estimate them. Our missionaries have not 
found that a communication of Christianity at once dis- 
pels the former education of their converts. Why should 
it have been different in the second century. In How- 
ard Malcom’s “Travels in Southeastern Asia” (Vol. 1, 
note on p. 262, edit. of 1839), the reader will find that 
“it was some time before the Christian converts [in 





1 «*There are some beasts also which are called Alces. These are like 
goats in figure and in the diversity of their skins, but are somewhat 
larger. They lack horns, and have legs devoid of joints ; nor do they 
lie down when they rest ; nor if they by any accident fall, can they get 
up again. ‘Trees serve them for couches. They place themselves against 
them, and, leaning but a little, take their rest. When the hunters per- 
ceive, from the marks, whither they are accustomed to betake themselves, 
they either root up or cut all the trees in that place, so that their upper 
part is left with the appearance as if they were standing. When the 
animals recline here as usual, they overturn the infirm trees by their 
weight, and fall with them.” — Ceesar, De Bello Gallico, 6, 27. 

2 “In the consulships of Paulus Fabius and Lucius Vitellius the 
Pheenix bird, after a long circuit of years, came [again] into Egypt, and 
afforded to the most learned both from among the natives and the 
Greeks, material for much discussion concerning the wonder. I will 
narrate the things in which they agree, and others which, though 
doubtful, are not absurd subjects for investigation. That bird (animal) 
is sacred to the sun, and those who have described its form agree that 
it differs from other birds in its appearance and in the separation (or 
singularity, distinctu) of its feathers. Concerning the number of years 











PREFACE. vit 
Burmah] could be reconciled to Mr. Judson’s perform- 
ing the marriage ceremony, or being present in any way. 
It seemed to them absolutely obscene.” Accustomed to 
deem the priest of their former faith polluted by presence 
at a wedding, they were, of course, shocked to see the 
minister of what they regarded as a still purer religion 
permit himself what would have made a priest of Burmah 
blush. The prepossessions of the Early Christians were 
not counteracted by missionaries schooled in foreign lands. 
Their teachers were from their own number, brought up 
under like influences with themselves. Why should we 
wonder that errors which Christianity directly, or but 
indirectly, opposed, and still more those of which it said 
nothing, were not at once dispelled from the minds of its 
professors ? | 


-Meapvm1e, Pa., July 21, 1853. 





_ [between its visits] there are various reports. The most current assigns 
. aspace of five hundred years. Some assert an interval of one thousand 


four hundred and sixty-one, and say that the former birds first in the 
reign of Sesosidis, afterwards in that of Amasis, then in that of Ptolemy, 
the third king of the Macedonian line, flew to the city called Heliopolis 
[city of the sun], with a great accompaniment of other birds, astonished 
at the unusual appearance. The ancient part of it is, however, obscure. 
Between Ptolemy and Tiberius were less than two hundred and fifty 
years, whence some have supposed this last Phcenix to be a spurious 
one, not from the land of Arabia, and to have had nothing belonging 
to it of those things which were established by ancient tradition. When 
the number of [its] years is finished, and death approaches, it constructs 
a nest in its own country, and infuses into it a producing power out of 
which the fetus springs. The first care of this when grown is to bury 
its parent, nor that rashly, but having taken up a load of Myrrha [an 
Eastern stone] and tried it during a long journey, when it proves equal 
to the burden and to the flight, it takes its parent’s body and bears it 
within the altar of the sun and burns it. These things are uncertain 
and increased by fables ; but there can be no doubt that that bird is 


_ Sometimes seen in Egypt.” — Tacitus, Annals, 6, 28. 


Vili PREFACE. 


At the foregoing date a few copies were struck off 
mainly to facilitate revision. An edition was published 
in 1854, which has since several years been exhausted. 
Applications for it continued, but the writer has not 
until the present date found leisure to reprint. The 
present edition contains, aside from minor alterations, 
some additional citations from Tertullian on pages 53, 
91, 99, 100, 158; one from Lactantius on page 31, as to 
the object of Christ’s death; some remarks, page 164, on 
a passage of Virgil; page 153 on a passage of Cicero; 
and pages 163, 164 on the Pseudo Josephus. The change 
of chief moment is one on page 146, with reference to the 
date and cause of Christ’s deification by some of the early 
Christians. 

In two or three instances (pages 4, 19, 146, 164, 172), 
reference has been made for fuller information to a work, 
Judaism at Rome, which the writer has in press, but 
which will not appear for some months. 


MEADVILLE, Pa., March 31, 1876. 


In the present edition there has, besides minor matters, ° 
been added to the Appendix a Note concerning the Homi- 
lies on Luke. 


MEADVILLE, PA., March 31, 1882. 





Pacr 









re . . e . ° . ° . 1 


OF THE CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS WITH MARCION. ~~ 4 
Ns -ConTROVERSY AMONG CATHOLICS . gee ase 
*; $: Ultra Meith Canostics orOrthodox . . «. « 7 
| _-% Libealists or Heterodox age ate MORE BB cs | iat EE 


orn THEOSOPHIC GNOSTICS . Reise 18 
: Ns = eo * : ‘ « 26 
aLD Mission THE Opsect or Curist’s DEATH 28 
(TROVERSY WITH THE HEATHENS. . . .  . 81 
Uspasvortn Mission FORETOLD. . . . ~~ 88 
‘WITH THE JEWS. R , aetoaa . 38 

NEEDED PRECURSORS BELOW . . . . 44 


* the Apostolic ail igh Se re 
49 


a In the Second and Third Centuries i get Soa 52 
. . . . . . . . 55 
» OR n Dearu, ‘Lorp oF THE UNDERWORLD : ‘ 58 


x CONTENTS. 


XV. Forrsopincs oF CoNFLICT . : ‘ ; 2 Oy heen 

1. The Agony in the Garden . ° ; , : 64 

2. The Twenty-second Psalm . : ‘ . eH, 

XVI. THE Vicrory.— THE UNDERWORLD RIVEN . ; 66 

XVII. Curist’s INCARNATION CONCEALED FROM SATAN . ayo: ae 

XVIII. Tue Ransom . ‘ : ; ; ’ . ; 85 

1 & Definition of Terms 4. : : ° i em 

2. What wasthe Ransom? . .. «+ |e tum 87 

3. Why Satan accepted it . , ‘ i A Soe | 

XIX. RECONCILIATION TO Gop . ; . ° ‘ . 92 

XX. DIscoMFoRTs OF THE UNDERWORLD . ‘ ° oe 

XXI. Locairy oF PARADISE . ; jo ag . ° 101 

. Object of the Inquiry . . ° ‘ . . 101 

. Twofold Theory . < ‘ ; ‘ j 103 

. Paradise in Heaven. ; : . ° . . 106 
. Paradise on Earth . ‘ é . > ee 107 — 

. Statements less precisely worded . : P + 268 

6. Additional Remarks . ; ; : : - 109 

XXII. CuHRisTIAN EXEMPTION FROM THE UNDERWORLD . . 112 

1. General Statement . ; ‘ : ° ° 112 

. The Marcionites  . ‘ 3 ° . ° ae 

. Liberalist or Heterodox Catholics , ; ° 114 

. Orthodox Catholics. — First Class . é . . 116 

. Orthodox Catholics. — Second Class . ‘ “ 119 

. The Valentinians . : ‘ : : . - 122 

7. The Clementine Homilies . . . «© « 125 


XXIII. Curist’s UNDERWORLD MISSION THE CAUSE OF THE 
EXEMPTION. : ; ‘ é ‘ q og ee 


XXIV. GENERAL REMARKS . 4 > * fs é 128 


XXV. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS . ‘ ‘s J ‘ “184 


ao Ff © DH 


ao oOo - © bb 


XXVI. CHuRcH AUTHORITY . . ‘A Ps . ; “ 140 


















5 APPENDIX. 

"Joao the Special Dity of the Old Testament Weer 
Mortality and Immortality. Life and Death . 
Pb mut tie. 
_F. Further Remarks on Section XXIL5  . . 


- G. Modern Views of the Clause in the Creed, ‘He descend- 
ieevmmaneo tne Underworld” ., 3. =. sl 


German and Dutch Calvinists . . . . . 








CHRIST’S Mission TO THE UNDERWORLD. 


§1. PRELIMINARY. 


It has been supposed ! that in ** the Homeric and Hesi- 
odic ages, the world or universe was” regarded as “a 
hollow P alobe divided into two equal portions by the flat 
disk of the earth”; that **the superior hemisphere was 
named HEAVEN, the inferior one TarTarvus.”” There is 
nothing inherently improbable in the idea that such a 
view should have once prevailed ; but the passages? ad- 
duced in its favor are insufficient to prove it. 


At the Christian—era-the-Underworld-appears-to—have 


been regarded as an immense.cavern.in-the-depths.of.the 


earth. No living man was supposed.to_have.seen it ; nor 
had any from among the dead returned to describe it. 
The descriptions of it by the poets may have created-or 
strengthened general impressions as to its nature, but 
were so obviously efforts of fancy, or so inconsistent, that 
they could not establish permanent and well-defined ideas 
of its interior structure. He who should attempt the 
fruitless task of obtaining from Christians in the nine- 
teenth century the subdivisions and interior structure of 








1 Anthon’s Classical Dictionary, Art. Tartarus. 

2 They are the two following: I (Jupiter) will throw him into dark 
Tartarus . . . as much below Hades as heaven is from the earth.?* — 
Homer, liad, 8, 13-16. ‘*They bound (the Titans) with heavy chains 

. as much below the earth as heaven is from it.?? — Hesiod, Theog. 


wv. 718 -— 720. 


2 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ I. 


heaven would soon learn to appreciate the vagueness of 
ancient conceptions touching the Underworld. 

This vast subterranean cavern was popularly regarded 
as the dwelling of the human race, — a belief, of course, 
not shared by those sceptics who denied man’s future ex- 
istence, and which must. have been held in a limited 
shape, if at all, by such as allotted the philosophic soul a 
super-terrestrial residence hereafter. Whether a disbelief 
in the Underworld AS A RESIDENCE FOR HUMAN SOULS 
went hand in hand with a disbelief in the very existence 
of such a place, may be a question. Plato so interweayes 
the Lower Regions with his system of natural science,’ as 
to warrant the supposition that others might with various 
modifications believe in the locality without receiving it 
as man’s future abode. 

Christians quoted the Saviour in proof that it was in 
the ** HEART of the earth,” an expression which probably 
does not imply that they believed the earth a sphere, or 
that they had any defined ideas of its shape. 

At the Christian era, popular phraseology would have 





8 In the Phedo of Plato the earth appears asa sphere [§ 132, (58)] 
hung in space and surrounded by the heavens ; Tartarus (to be distin- 
guished, evidently, from the Lower Regions), as a far distant chasm 
[§§ 139 - 142, (160, 161)], extending completely through the earth, into 
which the rivers, the ocean being one of the four principal ones, poured 
from above the earth and from below the earth, being never permitted to ~ 
pass its centre, for the opposite side of the earth would be * up-hill? to 
them. From this chasm they flowed through the earth’s interior realms, 
and, apparently by this route, regained their former sources. The sub- 
terranean streams of mud and fire occasionally found their way out 
through our volcanoes. 

Tertullian comments on the foregoing view of Plato, or rather on his 
own statement of it, by saying: ** To us the Underworld (Znferi) is not 
an EXPOSED cavity nor any OPEN receptacle for the bilge-water of the 
world, but a vast region extending upward and downward in the earth 
(in fossa terre et in alto vastitas), a profundity hid away in its very 
bowels. For we read that Christ passed the three days of his death in 
the HEART of the earth, that is, in an internal recess, hidden in the earth 
itself and hollowed out within it, and based upon yet lower abysses.” 
— De Anima, c. 55, p. 353. A. B. 








a ca i ls 





§ 1] PRELIMINARY. 3 


made little distinction between the fact of man’s death, 

and the idea of his-descent-tothe Lower Regions. The 
latter was regarded as implied in the former. When. 
Peter_quotes* from the Psalms in evidence that God 
would not leave Christ in the Underworld, he makes no 
effort to prove that Christ. had ever-gone-there..This was 
an inference which his hearers would probably have re- 
garded as necessarily involved in his death. It needed 








no proof. 


But if Christ went to the Underworld, what did he do 


there? This was a question not unlikely to present itself 


to some inquiring mind. The supposition has been made 
and contested, that this question suggested itself already 
in the Apostolic age, and that we have from the pen of 
Peter an attempted solution ® of it. To the examination 
of this point we shall return hereafter.’ 

Pon eS we almost lose sight of 
the Christians in an historical chasm of sixty or eighty 
ee Feeppeat on on the hither side of it, we 

as their records enable us to judge; that, amone 
all the parties into which they are divided, though with 
one modification hereafter to be made,’ a. belief has _be- 














come firmly established that Christ_performed_a_mission 
in the Underworld. The variety of discussions as to its 


nature prove the universality of belief in the supposed 
fact of the mission itself. To these discussions we will 


now attend. 





* Acts 2, 27, 31; compare Psalm 16, 10. 

- § Lactantius in the beginning of the fourth century seems to have 
regarded the like inference a reliable one concerning the Heathen gods, 
whom for the time being he must have regarded as deified men. ‘If 
any one,”? he says, ** would inquire further, let him congregate such as 
are skilled in summoning souls from the Underworld. Let them call out 
Jupiter, Neptune, Vulcan, Mercury, Apollo, and Saturn the father of 
all ; and, when interrogated, they will speak and make confession con- 
cerning themselves and concerning God. After this let them summon 
Christ. He will‘not come nor appear, for he only abode two days in the 
Underworld. What can be proposed more certain than this test ??? —Div. 
Inst, 4, 27. 


~ © 1 Pet. 3, 19, 7 See § XI. 8 See S$ 1V. 


4 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ 1. 


§ Il, CONTROVERSY OF THE CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS 
WITH MARCION. 


As the Christians emerge from the historical chasm 
mentioned in the preceding section, we find them, besides 
Jewish Christians, divided into two general parties, the 
Gnostics and Catholics, the latter being the main body of _ 
Christians. The Gnostics owed their existence to an em- 
bittered war between Jews and Heathens, on which com- 
pare Judaism at Rome, Ch. XI. § 1 1. They regarded the 
Old and New Testaments, not only as distinct revelations, 
but as proceeding from distinct beings. The author of 
the former was revealed in it as the Creator and Ruler 
of this world, and in this light they regarded him. The 
source of the latter was a superior Deity, concerning 
whom the Saviour himself had said, ** Vo man knoweth 
the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal 
him” ;1 a statement which precluded the idea of His 
having been revealed to man at a still earlier date. Paul 
also had clearly distinguished, as the Marcionites thought, 
the ** God of this world? 2 from the author of Christianity. 
The Catholics, on the other hand, regarded the two reve- 
lations as having their origin in the same source. 

The Gnostics 1 may be subdivided into MaRcronrrEs and 
THEOSOPHIC or ALEXANDRINE GNostTIcs, the latter branch 
admitting still other subdivisions. Deferring these latter 
for a future section, we shall here confine ourselves to 
the former. The Marcionites took their name and sys- 
tem from their leader, Marcion. His writings have per- 
ished, and we are obliged to sift out his opinions from the 
statements or misstatements of his opponents. He was a 
native of Pontus in Asia Minor. His religious system 
was tinctured by the asceticism of his age, and his theo- 
logical views were probably biased by sharpness of col- 





1 Matt. 11, 27; Luke 10, 22; Ireneus, 4, 6, 1 (4, 14); Tertul. adv. 
Marcion. 4, 25, p. 544. A. 
2 2 Cor. 4,4; Tertul. adv. Marcion. 5, 11, pp. 597. D., 598. A. 


ee a a 


er ee eee ee eee eee - pts i= — 





§ 11] CONTROVERSY WITH MARCION. 5 


lision between himself and whatever was Jewish, either 
within or without the Christian pale. On some points 


his religious views contrast favorably with those of his 


Catholic brethren, especially with those of his ultra op- 
onents,? though he seems to have lacked judgment as a 
ogician and interpreter, and to have solved not a few of 

his New Testament difficulties in a manner. peculiar to 

himself, by the application of a pruning-knife to what he 
could not harmonize with his system. 

_Treneus tells us: ** Besides (Marcion’s) blasphemy 
against [the Jewish] God, he added this, receiving indeed — 
a mouth from the Devil, and speaking all things contrary 
to the truth; that Cain and those who were like him, and 
the Sodomites and Egyptians, and those who were like 
them, and in fact all the Gentiles who had walked in 
thorough wickedness, were saved by the Lord when he 
descended into the Underworld, and that they had hastened 
to him, and that he took them into his kingdom. But 
Abel and Enoch and Noah and the other Just Men, and 
those who belonged to the Patriarch Abraham, with all 
the Prophets and such as had pleased God, did not, ac- 
cording to the preaching of the serpent in Marcion, par- 
ticipate in the salvation. ‘ For since, he said, ‘they knew 


that their God was always trying them, and suspected 


that he was trying them then, they did not hasten to 
Jesus nor believe what he announced; and therefore? 
(Marcion) said ‘their souls remained in the Under- 
world.’ 9 6 

Essentially the same account of Marcion’s view is given 
in Theodoret.6 Epiphanius, in the latter part of the fourth 
century, who never suffers the follies of heretics to be 





8 See Neander, Church History, Torrey’s trans., Vol. 1, pp. 327, 328. 
Moehler, the Roman Catholic, speaks of Marcion as ** the most pious 
of Gnostics.”? See his Symbolism, p. 274. 

* Or possibly, * all such nations as had walked.*? A Latin translation 
of the passage alone remains, nor does the parallel Greek of Theodoret 
here assist us. 

5 Contra Heres. 1, 27, 3 (1, 29). 

§ Heret. Fabule, 1, 24 ; Opera, 4, p. 158. 


6 UNDERWORLD MISSION. | [§ 1. 


diminished in his account of them, specifies * Cain, Korah, 
Dathan, and Abirain as among the worthies thus: hereti- 
cally saved. 

Marcion was a rigid moralist, and accepted the histori- 
eal accuracy of the Old Testament. On this accuracy, in 
fact, he based no small part of his argument for the dis- 
tinction of the Jewish Deity, the Just God, as he termed 
him, from the Father, the Goop God, whom Christ had 
revealed. Can we then believe the statements of Irenzeus 
and others concerning him:? Or are they but misappli- 
cations which his enemies have made of general and 
unguarded expressions ? 

Marcion may have supposed the Jews in the Under- 
world to be essentially the same stiff-necked, perverse 
race which he deemed them on earth; that there, as here, 
the Gospel had met its chief acceptance among Gentiles. 
He may, too, have used in perfect good faith the argu- 
ment 8 which Irenzus puts into his mouth. Antagonism 
to Jewish prejudices might prompt him to specify the 
Egyptians, the ancient and hated enemies of Israel, as not 
excluded from Christ’s teaching, and he may have under- 
stood the Saviour’s lamentation over Chorazin, Bethsaida, 
and Capernaum as implying that Sodom and Gomorrah 
would repent ® at his instructions ; an interpretation which 





7 Adv. Heres. 42, 4; Opera, 1, p. 305.°A. 

8 Based on such passages, perhaps, as the following : ** If there arise 
among you a prophet . . . and giveth thee a sign or wonder, and the sign 
or wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying, * Let us go after 
other Gods which thou hast not known, and let us serve them,’ thow shalt 
not hearken unto the words of that prophet, . . . for the Lord your G 


PROVETH you.?? —Deut. 13, 1-3. God did tempr Abraham)? —Gen, — 


22,1. Then said the Lord, . . . The People shall go out and gather a 
certain rate every day, that I may PROVE them.?? — Exod. 16, 4. ** Moses 
said unto The People, * Fear not ; for God is come to PROVE you.??? — 
Exod. 20, 20. aa 

® The idea of repentance in the narrative of Luke (10, 13) is directly 
connected, not with Sodom and Gomorrah, but with Tyre and Sidon ; 
though, as an inference, it might very well bear a connection with the 
former. In Matthew, however, a capacity of repentance is implied for 
Sodom (11, 23): ** If the mighty works... had been done in Sodom it 


— a 


a A 
ae 





§ m1.] CONTROVERSY AMONG CATHOLICS. 7 


was actually put upon it by at least one Catholic writer, 
as will appear under the second division of the next sec- 
tion. But for the salvation of Cain and similar worthies 
there is no plausible ground discernible in Marcion’s sys- 
tem. The connection between Cain and the Sodomites 
existed more probably in the minds of Marcion’s opponents 
than in his own statements. Irenzus manifests consid- 
erable feeling in his account of Marcion ; a feeling which, 
judging from extracts in the next section, was not con- 
fined to himself. 





§ III. CONSEQUENT CONTROVERSY AMONG CATHO- 
LICS. 


1. Ultra Anti-Gnostics or Orthodox 


Au the Catholic Fathers maintained that the Mosaic 
institutions were not essential to salvation. .A portion of 





would have remained to this day.? It is true that Matthew’s Gospel was 
. one of the three which Marcion was not accustomed to use. He con- 
fined himself almost exclusively to his own expurgated copy of Luke, 
distrusting the Jewish prejudices of any save Paul’s companion. Yet 
when testimony in the other Evangelists militated against what Marcion 
deemed Jewish preconceptions, he seems to have used it as reliable. 
Thus the passage, ** Who is my mother, and who are my brethren ?” 
(Matt. 12, 48 ; Mark 3, 33), though not to be found in Luke, was, accord- 
ing to Tertullian (4dv. Marcion. 4, 19, p. 531. D.), a **most constant 
argument of all who dispute the Lord’s nativity,” that is, of Marcion and 
his followers, 

Some explanation of Marcion’s exclusiveness towards Abraham and 
his posterity in the Underworld might be found in those remarks of the 
Saviour which imply an indifference to his teachings on the part of the 
cities most favored with them, GREATER than could have been looked for 
in Sodom and Gomorrah. Marcion was accustomed to push the meaning 
of such passages. 

1 [ use the terms § orthodox? and sliberalist, 2 in the absence of better 
ones, to designate, not personal character, but. party distinctions, for 
_. some explanation of which the reader is referred to the Appendix, Note E. 


8 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ 111. 


them, who from their fear of heresy may be designated 
as the ultra Anti-Gnostic, or Orthodox, party coincided 
closely with the Jews on several points. Yet, as not un- 
frequently happens, it was in this party — the one most 
nearly allied to them —that the Jews found their warmest 
opponents. The writers are of this semi-Jewish party, — 
if it may so be termed, — who have left us the most elab- 
orate and strenuous arguments to prove the non-essential 
character of the Mosaic institutions. Abel, Enoch, Noah, 
and others had proved acceptable to God without them, 
and hence they were evidently unnecessary to salvation.” 
Justin Martyr affirms that they were given to the Jews 
solely on account of their hardness of heart; and adds, 
“6 Unless this be so, God will be calumniated as destitute 
of foreknowledge and as not teaching the same rules of 
righteousness to all for their knowledge and observ- 
ance.”?8 

Consistently with their own arguments, the writers of 
this party were the last who could have restricted the 
benefits of Christ’s Underworld mission to the Jews. 
Yet antipathy to Marcion seems to have made them for- 
get their own reasoning, and reject as heresy in the 
Underworld what they defended.as Orthodoxy on earth. 
In. judging how much force should be attributed to the 
following extracts from their writings, the reader will do 
well to suspend his opinion until he has perused the cita- 
tion from Clement, which is evidently meant as a reply 
to their views. 

Justin Martyr, as will appear under § [X., quotes and 
perhaps alters a passage so as to make it the ** dead from 
among IsRAEL?? to whom the Lord preached, and cites 





It would be a mistake, as regards character, to contrast Cyprian and Her- 
mas as samples, the former of a liberalist and the latter of an exclusive. 
On the classification of Tertullian, the reader will please compare a note 
under the fifth division of § XXII. 

2 Justin Martyr, Dial. cc. 19, 27; Tertul. adv. Judeos, c. 2; sani 
4, 16, 2 (4, 30). 

8 Dial. c. 92 ; compare 23. Compare also the Sibylline Oracles, Book 
8, line 287 (301), p. 736. 


§ 11.] CONTROVERSY AMONG CATHOLICS. 9 


the Old Testament in proof that the FATHERS confessed 
him. As he was arguing to the Jews, he might have 
been prompted, not by opposition to Marcion, but by the 
desire of showing that even the Jews, and the Fathers 
themselves, had need of Christ. The same explanation 
will hardly apply to all the following extracts. 

Irenzus tells us, ** Therefore the Lord descended to the 
regions under the earth, preaching to them also his ad- 
vent, the sins of such as believed on him being remitted. 
But all believed on him who WERE HOPING FOR HIM, that 
is, who had FORETOLD HIS COMING, and OBEYED HIS STAT- 
uTES; the Just Men and Propuets, and PatTRIARCHS, 
to whom he remitted their sins in like manner as to us.??® 
Elsewhere he states as the object of Christ’s death, ** That 
he might announce the glad tidings to ABRAHAM AND 
THOSE WHO WERE WITH HIM.”?‘ Elsewhere he speaks of 
the Lord’s suffering as the means of awakening his 
sleeping *DISCIPLES,’ a term which he, at least, would not 
have applied to the just Gentiles that had lived prior to 
Christ, and which he further explains by saying that 
“Christ came . . . on account of all men who from the 
beginning . . . had both feared and loved God . . . and 

DESIRED TO SEE CHRIST, and to hear his voice?’ The 
sleeping disciples on whose account he had descended 
to the Lower Regions were those of whom he had said to 
his Apostles, ** Many Prophets and Just Men have desired 
to see and hear what you see and hear.”® And again he 


] 
. 
i 
* 
; 





* Justin and the subsequent Fathers maintained, though at the ex- 
pense sometimes of consistency, that it was Jesus or the Logos who had 
spoken to Moses at the bush, and to the Prophets. See Appendix, 

Note A. . 

5 Just Men. To some extent this was a technical term for those who 
in the Old Testament were said to have pleased God. Compare extract 
from Irenzus in § II, and from Hermas on pp. 11 and 56; also Indirect 
Testimony, p. 59. 

® Cont. Heres. 4, 27, 2 (4, 45). 7 Cont. Heres. 5, 33, 1. 

8 Cont. Heres. 4, 22, 1 (4, 39). 

* Ibid. The uncircumcised whom Irenzus mentions at the close of the 

chapter as justified by faith are the Patriarchs prior to the time of Abra- 
_. ham in whom the Gentile Christians are ‘‘ prefigured.” 





10 | UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ ut. 


quotes,® without the prophet’s name, a spurious pas- 
sage from the Old Testament, hereafter to be noticed, 
which limits the salvation that had taken place to the 
“ SaInts,” a term that could not have included departed 
Gentiles, and which it may be noticed under the second 
division of our present head that Clement of Alexandria 
omits from his quotation — a memoriter one probably — 
of Matthew 27, 52, where its introduction would have 
spoiled his argument. It seems to have been uncon- 
sciously added to the supposed passage of the Old Testa- 
ment by the prepossessions of Irenzeus, since in four 
other quotations of it by himself and one by Justin this 
term does not appear. | 

The Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, in a passage to be 
quoted more fully hereafter, regards Christ as having suf- 
fered, *¢ that he might render to THE FATHERS what had 
been promised them.?? 4 

A passage in the SMALLER GREEK epistles attributed to 
Ignatius coincides in tone with the first extract above 
given from Irenzeus: ** How shall we live without him 
whom THE PROPHETS — being his disciples * through the 
spirit (i.e. through his supernatural communications to 
them) — looked for as their teacher [in the Underworld]. 
And on this account he whom they justly expected, being: 
come, waked them from the dead.?? 8 

Tertullian represents an opponent of one of his views as 
saying, *¢ I think (that Christ descended) to the souls of. 
THE PATRIARCHS.” # And again he represents opponents 
as speaking of *¢ Paradise, whither already the Patriarchs 
and Prophets, the companions of the Lord’s resurrection, 
have passed from the Underworld.” He himself says 





10 Cont. Heres. 5,31, 1. See this spurious passage in § VIII. 

11 Ut promissum patribus redderet, c. 5. 

12 See Appendix, Note A. 

18 Magnesians, c. 9 (3, 5, 6). 

14 De Anima, c. 7, Opp. p. 309. D. © 

15 De Anima, c. 55, p. 353. C.. As these opponents held the heretical 
view, that Christian souls went at death to Paradise, Tertullian, to whose 
main point the present question was unimportant, probably stated their 
opinions in his own phraseology. 





§ 111.] CONTROVERSY AMONG CATHOLICS. 11 


“that Christ did not ascend the heights of heaven before 
he had ‘descended. into the.lower parts of the earth? that 
there he might make the PATRIARCHS AND PROPHETS 
participators of himself.” 16 
_ The devout Hermas, author of The Shepherd, seems to 
have been so absorbed in the subject of practical right- 
eousness, — or of what he mistook for it,—as to have 
mingled little in the polemics of his day. Yet he belonged 
apparently to the ultra Anti-Gnostics or Orthodox divis- 
ion of Catholics, and in a passage to be more fully 
quoted in the thirteenth section, he explains his own 
allegory concerning ten and twenty-five stones which 
were successively brought up (from the Underworld) to 
be built into the foundation of Christ’s Church, by saying 
that these stones represented the first and second ages of 
Just Men, —the ages as it would seem from Adam to 
Abraham and from Abraham to Moses,—after which 
thirty more are brought up representing the Prophets and 
ministers of the Lord under the Mosaic dispensation. 
The passage may have but an indirect connection with 
the Lord’s descent, yet the omission of Gentiles from the 
list of saved indicates equally the prevailing bias. 

No member of the foregoing party admits, so far as I 
have been able to discover, a liberation by Christ of the 
GENTILES. below. 


2. Liberalists or Heterodozx. 


Among the Catholics who did not feel bound to recoil 
on every point as far as possible from Gnosticism, the 
Alexandrine school stood prominent. The writings of 
Clement of Alexandria, of Origen, and some fragments, 


- constitute all!” its extant literature out of the second and 


third centuries. Its adherents appear to have maintained 
in the present controversy the same generous tone of 





16 Thid. , 
‘W Athenagoras has sometimes been classed with this school ; but the 
evidence therefor is insufficient, and his distinguishing views are diamet- 


-rically opposed to those of its undoubted leaders and disciples. 


12 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ 111. 


theology which was their wont. Clement led the way in 
defending the cause of departed Gentiles, and — judging 
from his tone and manner — found it hard work to stem 
the current of narrow feeling among his nominally Catholic 
brethren. He endeavors to support himself by an appeal 
to Hermas. 

*¢ The Shepherd,” he says, ** by speaking ® simply (or 
without limitation) of ‘THOSE WHO HAD FALLEN ASLEEP, 
recognizes some as Just Men both among the GeEn- 
TILES and Jews, [and thus recognizes] not only such as 
preceded the Lord’s coming, but those PRIOR TO THE 
Law, who were well pleasing to God, as Abel, Noah, or 
any other Just Man... . ¢ For when the Gentiles, not hav- 
ing the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, though 
they have not the Law, they are a Law to themselves? (Rom. 
2, 14), according to the Apostle.” 9 : 

The admitted acceptability to God of men who lived 
prior to Moses or Abraham was, as already stated, a favor- 
ite argument with the Early Christians in proving against 
the Jews the equal privileges of the Gentiles. Clement 
seems to have thought, and justly, that if it were logical 
and a good Catholic doctrine above ground, it could not 
be illogical and heretical below. 

Elsewhere he argues as follows: ** To those who were 
just according to the Law, faith was wanting. ... To 
the just according to Philosophy, not only faith in the 
Lord, but abstinence from Idolatry 7° was needful. Where- 





18 The passage alluded to will be found in the thirteenth section. 

19 Strom. 2, 43, Clem. Alex. Opp. p. 452. 

20 The Early Christians, in their fierce contest with the Heathen wor- 
ship around them, came to regard idolatry as the sin of all sins, not 
merely in a Christian, who must violate his conscience by idol-worship, 
but in the Heathens, who deemed it their duty. The man who persevered 
until death in idolatry was, according to their teaching, lost. It would 
appear from Clement’s remark, that his opponents made no distinction 
in this respect between those who died before and such as died after 
Christ, obvious as, according to their system, the distinction must have 
been. I have not, however, found a statement of this reason for exclud- 
ing the Gentiles from the benefits of Christ’s subterranean mission, in 





§ 11.] CONTROVERSY AMONG CATHOLICS. 13 


fore the Lord preached to those in the Underworld ; for 
according to the Scripture, * The Underworld says to De- 
struction, We have not, indeed, seen his form, but we have 
heard his voice? (Job 28, 22?) It was not the place 
which, after listening to his voice, spoke the foregoing, 
but those [without distinction of race] who were in the 
Underworld. . . . These are they who attended to the 
Divine voice and [manifestation of ] power. For what 
reasonable man would brand Providence with injustice, by 
deeming the souls of Just Men [from among the Gentiles] 
and sinners [of all nations] under one condemnation ? 
What! Do not the Scriptures manifest that the Lord 
preached the Gospel to those who perished in the deluge, 
— or rather?! to such as had been bound, and to those in 
prison and custody? It has been shown [by me] in the 
second book of Stromata, that the Apostles,” in imitation 
of the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in the Under- 
world. For there also, as here, I think that it behooved 





any writer of the second or third century. In the fourth century Augus- 
tine quotes Faustus the Manichean as saying : ** Yet this alone appears 
to me objectionable in this opinion of yours, that you should believe it 
- only of the Jewish Fathers, and not of the others also, — the Patriarchs 
of the Gentiles, — that they too had experienced at some time this favor 
of our Liberator, especially since the Christian assembly is composed to 
a greater extent of their children than from the seed of Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob. But you say, indeed, ‘The Gentiles worshipped idols, the 
Jews worshipped the Omnipotent God, therefore Jesus cared for them 
only.’ ”? — Augustine, Cont. Faustum, 33, 1. 

#1 A self-correction. Clement intended to appeal, not to Peter, but 
to Isaiah 49,8, 9: **Z assisted thee . . . that thou mightest say to the 
bound, * Go forth,? and to those in darkness, *Be manifest.2°? He had 
previously explained *the bound’ as meaning the Jews, and ‘those in 
darkness,’ the Gentiles. See Strom. 6,6, Opp. p. 762. Perhaps, more- 
over, Clement thought the passage of Peter (1 Pet. 3, 19, 20) too strong for 
his purpose, since according to it Christ preached to the WIcKED, whereas 
Clement found his hands full in maintaining that the Saviour preached 
to RIGHTEOUS Gentiles. 

22 The passage referred to is a simple quotation from Hermas, and is 
included in the extract from that writer which will be given in the thir- 
_ teenth section. 


14 ‘UNDERWORLD. MISSION. [§ ur. 


the best ?* of the disciples to be imitators of their Teach- 


er, that the one should lead to conversion the Hebrews, 
and the others the Gentiles; that is, such of both as had 
lived according to the justice of the Law or of Philosophy, 
not perfectly, indeed, but imperfectly.”? *4 

“Tf, then, the sole cause of the Lord’s descent to the 
Underworld was to preach the Gospel,—as descend he 
certainly did, — it was either that he might preach it to 
all, or to the Hebrews alone. But. if to all, then ALL wHo 
BELIEVED will be saved, even if they should be from 
‘among the Gentiles, seeing that they have already heart- 
ily confessed him there. ... But if he preached the 
Gospel to the Jews only, to whom the knowledge and 
faith which come by the Saviour were wanting, it is 
manifest that, as God is no respecter of external. distinc- 
tions, the Apostles there also, as here, must have preached 
it to such of the Gentiles as were fitted for conversion. 
So that it is well said by the Shepherd, . . . * THosE -wHo 
HAD ALREADY FALLEN ASLEEP descended [into the bap- 
tismal water] dead, but ascended alive.’ 

*¢ Moreover the Gospel says (Matt. 27, 52), * Many bodies 
of those who had fallen asleep arose, obviously meaning 
that they had been transferred to a better place. There 
took place, therefore, some GENERAL movement and trans- 
lation [i. e. both of Jews and Gentiles] under the Saviour’s 
dispensation. One Just Man, therefore, is not differently 
treated from another; and this is proper, whether he be 
under the Law or a Greek: for God is not the Lord of 
the Jews only, but of all men, and the Father of such as 
have known him more nearly. For if to live rightly is to 
live LAw-fully, and to live according to reason is to live 
according to the Law; and if those who lived rightly be- 
fore the Law were regarded as faithful (or believers), and 
were pronounced Just, — it is manifest that those outside 
of the Law, who have lived rightly according to their con- 
science,” although they may have been in the Under- 





%3 The Shepherd says forty. 
24 Strom. 6, 44, Opp. pp. 762, 763. 


25 Ava ri Tis Pwvijs ldubryra. Perhaps more literally, ** according to ~ 


= 











§ 111.) CONTROVERSY AMONG CATHO 


world and in custody, yet when they heard the voice of 
the Lord,— whether his own, or that which. operated 
through the Apostles, — were immediately converted and 
believed.’? 76 

_ Also, in the Preaching of Peter, the Lord says to 
his disciples after the resurrection, ‘I have chosen you 
twelve disciples, judging you to be worthy of me’; 
whom also the Lord, deeming them faithful, wished as 
his Apostles, sending them to preach throughout the in- 
habited world, ... that those who heard and believed 
might be saved; but that the unbelieving, in that they 
had heard, might bear witness that they could not say in 
apology, * We have not heard.’ 

“ What then? Did not the same administration hold 
good in the Underworld ; that there, also, all the souls, 
having heard the preaching, might manifest repentance, or 
confess that. their punishment was justly due to their un- 
belief ?. For it would be no ordinary injustice 77 that those 
who preceded the Lord’s coming, and neither had the 
Gospel nor were responsible for believing or disbelieving, 
should partake of salvation or punishment. It would be 
altogether iniquitous that they should be condemned with- 


out a trial, and that only such as have lived since the 


Lord’s coming should have enjoyed the Divine justice.” * 

Clement assumes above, that, whereas ** MANY bodies of 
those who had fallen asleep arose”? at the Saviour’s resur- 
rection, the translation must have included the Gentiles. 
This scarcely accords with the position that the Apostles 





the peculiarities of that voice [whereby God spoke to them as to the an- 
cient Patriarchs].?? See Appendix, Note A. 

26 Strom. 6, 46, Opp. pp.763, 764. 

27 Why had they or the righteous Jews been sent to the Underworld ? 
Clement deemed God’s punishments there (as in this life) to be intended 
for man’s improvement .(a position, by the by, which, if consistently car- 
ried out, ought finally to have emptied the Underworld), — see his 
Works, p. 764, lines 3-6, and p. 766, lines 88, 39, — and would per- 
haps have given that as one answer. See also Appendix, Note. B, on 
Mortality and its destiny. 

_ ® Strom. 6,47, Opp. pp. 764, 765. 





16 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ 11. 


preached to these same Gentiles and baptized them below. 
The Apostles could not have preached in the Underworld 
to those who had already been removed out of it. Clement 
does not seem to have observed this inconsistency. He 
was led into it partly by the desire of pressing some 
support for his views out of the already established 
reputation of Hermas, and partly, it would seem, by the 
consciousness that, as Christ had not preached to the 
Gentiles on earth, analogy would favor such a mission in 
the Underworld on the part of the Apostles more readily 
than on that of the Master. 

Touching the question whether it were Christ or the 
Apostles who preached to the departed Gentiles, Clement 
shifts his position, as if uncertain on what ground he 
might eventually best succeed in resting his defence; 
though the correctness of his main point — the call of the 
Gentiles — was already settled by his moral perception. 
His uncertainty is that of a man feeling his way in a new 
position, rather than of one who is defending a well-known 
opinion by long-established arguments. 7 

Origen, the pupil of Clement, started, no doubt, in much 
of his theology, from the point to which his teacher had. 
arrived. He regarded the benetits of Christ’s death as not 
even limited to mankind, but extending to all rational 
creatures.227. In a passage which refers especially to men, 
he tells us that *¢ Christ gave his soul a ransom for many 
(Matt. 20, 283) who believed on him, and if a belief of all 
upon him were supposable, he would have given his soul 
a ransom for all; 8° and adds, a little further on, that, in 
the Underworld, ** ALL WHO WISHED to follow him from 
among Death’s prisoners could do so.??*!_ Elsewhere he 
Says, * The Patriarchs, therefore, and Prophets and ALL 
awaited [below] the coming of my Lord Jesus Christ ;”? * 
nor does he appear to have considered a defence of such 
language requisite. 





29 A statement of his views on this point may be found in the Christian 
Examiner (Boston), Vol. 11, pp. 42 — 46. ’ 

39 Comment. in Matt., Tom. 16, Opp. 3, p. 726. A. 

81 Tbid., B. 

82 Homil. 2, on 1 Kings (i. e. Samuel), Opp. 2, p. 498. A. 








§ I11.] CONTROVERSY AMONG CATHOLICS. 17 


In Potter’s edition of Clement, pp. 1006 to 1011, may 
be found a Latin commentary on some of the Catholic 
Epistles, entitled ** Adumbrations of Clement.” It is 
supposed * to be the remains of a translation which Cas- 
siodorus made or caused to be made, with expurgations, 
from a Greek work called Hypotyposes ; a work which 
he regarded as Clement’s. I incline to the supposition, 
that these Adumbrations are from some Alexandrine con- 
temporary of Clement or Origen.*4 

The Adumbrations on Jude, after commenting on the 
fallen angels who were *¢ reserved in perpetual chains wnder 
darkness unto the judgment of the great day,? quotes the 
- beginning of verse seventh, ** Zven as Sodom and Gomor- 
rah; : to whom,” says the writer, 6 the Lord signifies 
that more indulgence was shown [than to the “fallen 
angels], and that ON BEING INSTRUCTED THEY REPENTED.” 

The commentary is intelligible on the supposition alone 
that its writer referred to Christ’s mission in the Under- 
world, and that he understood the Master’s lamentation 
over the Jewish cities which had not listened to him 
(Matt. 11, 23; Luke 10, 12, 13) as implying a better appre- 
ciation of his teachings by Sodom and Gomorrah. 

Arnobius was a Latin Christian, and, though not of the 
ultra Anti-Gnostic or Orthodox, 35 does not belong to the 
Alexandrine School. He must, however, have been an 
admirer of Clement of Alexandria, whose ideas he has fre- 
quently copied. In the seventh section of this essay an 
extract from his writings will be given, which was in- 
tended by him as an answer to a question asked, or a 
difficulty urged, by THE’HeaTHENS. If it had any force 





83 See note on page 1006 of Potter’s Clement. 

8 In a work by John Kaye, Bishop of Lincoln, entitled, Some <Ac- 
count of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria, a note 
concerning the Hypotyposes will be found on pp. 5, 6. It extracts from 
Photius (an anthor of the ninth century) a statement touching objection- 
able doctrines which he found in these Hypotyposes. The fall of the 
angels, there mentioned, was a common doctrine of the early Fathers. 
The succession of worlds was a view of Origen. 

_ % See his views in the Appendix, Note E, 


18 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ Iv. 


in meeting THEIR difficulty, it must have been on the sup- 
position that Arnobius did not exclude Gentiles from the 
benefits of Christ’s mission to the departed. 

Cyprian, the disciple of Tertullian, swerved from the 
Orthodox on the subject of man’s fate at death. His 
phraseology as to the subjects of the Underworld mission, 
though not definite, is free from narrowness. In proof of 
the position that ** No one can attain to God the Father 
except through his Son, Jesus Christ,?’ he adduces, after 
proofs pertaining to the living, a misquotation or mis- 
translation of 1 Pet. 4, 6: *¢* For to this end the Gospel was 
preached to THE DEAD ALSO, that they might be raised up 
(or awaked, ut suscitentur).??°6 An Orthodox writer 
would have found some quotation restricting this salva- 
tion to the Fathers, which would have strengthened his 
argument by bringing into prominence that even Abra- 
ham and the Prophets needed to participate in Christ’s 
teaching. ‘This is not of course conclusive as to Cyprian’s 
opinions, but the absence of Orthodox phraseology from 
the language of one who had been educated in it, implies 
rather strongly that he did not share the opinions. which 
prompted it. In his language concerning Paradise,* 
there is also nothing determinate as to who accompanied 
the Saviour thither at the time of his resurrection. 





§IV. ALEXANDRINE OR TEESEOR RY GNOSTICS. 


ALLusIon has already been made (under § IL.) to the 
Alexandrine or Theosophic Gnostics,’ a much more meta- 





86 Testimon. adv. Judos, 2, 27, p. 48. 

87 See Appendix, Note E. 

1 They are sometimes called Alexandrine, because their most distin- 
guished leaders, Valentinus and Basilides, were from Alexandria, and be- 
cause their views were strongly tinged with Alexandrine forms of thought ; 
sometimes Theosophic, because of their metaphysical speculations concern- 

ing the Deity. Compare touching them Judaism at Rome, Ch. 11,§1& 1 











§ Iv.] THEOSOPHIC GNOSTICS. 19 


physical class of thinkers than the Marcionites. Scanty 
fragments of their writings alone remain, and the argu- 
ments of their opponents hardly enable us to see into 
systems of thought which, as set forth by their own advo- 
cates, were not probably very intelligible. The VAL- 
ENTINIANS — concerning whom our information is 
least defective — were the main subdivision of this 
class of Gnostics; and though their opinions of Christ’s 
descent, as hereafter to be stated, were probably shared 
by others if not by all, of the Theosophic Gnostics, 
yet it is of the Valentinians only that anything can be 
affirmed. 

The Valentinians agreed with Marcion in regarding the 
being from wh lour came as distinct from the 
God of the Jews, who was the Creator of this world. 
Their views of the latter were anore favorable than Mar- 
cion’s, and their system of the universe more complicated. 
They shared a not uncommon conception of their times, 
that the earth was spanned by seven heavens.?. These, 
with the earth beneath them, were the work of the Jewish 
Deity, who dwelt in the highest, or seventh.* Far above 
him, in the altitudes of space, lay the Pleroma, the resi- 
dence of the Supreme Deity and of the spiritual beings or 
Zons who had been developed from him. 

In the Middle Space — between the Creator and the 
Pleroma — dwelt * Wisdom? or Achamoth. Human be- 
ings were divided into three classes: the Earthly ; the 
Rational or Psychical; and the Spiritual: or, as it might 
otherwise be phrased, into Beings of Earth, of Soul, and 
of Spirit. The Earthly were destined to perish. The 
Rational perished or attained to salvation, according to 
the lives which they led. The latter class of Rational, 
and also the Spiritual, prior to the Christian dispensation, 
passed at death, as it would seem, to a place of rest in the 
heavens of the Creator, perhaps to the seventh heaven, 











“2 See Appendix, Note ©. 
8 Treneus 1, 5, 2 (1, 1). 
* Iren. 1, 5, 4 (1,1). 
_ 5 Tren. 1, 6, 2 and 4; 1, 7, 5. 


20 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ Iv. 


perhaps to Paradise,© which the Valentinians placed 
either in the fourth heaven, or else in the fourth space 
counting from the earth upwards, that is, in the space 
between the third and fourth heavens. The Saviour re- 
moved the Spiritual out of this into the Middle Space. 
The Psychical—if the Doctrina Orientalis represents 
the opinions of all— remained’ with the Creator until 
the consummation. They and the Creator were then to 
ascend to and dwell in the Middle Space,’ while Wisdom 
and her children — the Spiritual— were to be elevated 
into the Pleroma, and this world was to be burnt up. 
Jesus was the supernaturally constituted Messiah of 
the Creator. To assist him in his important work, the 
Eon Saviour descended into him at his baptism out of 
the Pleroma, but rose again and left him when he was 
taken before Pilate. It is of this A’on Saviour, and not 





6 The Valentinians held, with many Catholics, that man was created 
in the Heavenly Paradise. That they should have agreed with the Cath- 
olics in regarding it as the place to which the Creator purposed restoring 
him, would seem not improbable, and the rather, since there would thus 
have been a correspondence between the two places of rest. The fourth 
heaven was the middle one, so also was the fourth intercelestial space. 
Either, but more especially the latter, could be regarded as analogous to 
the (supercelestial) MIDDLE Space. The Valentinians were fond of such 
correspondences between the works of the Creator and those above him, 
believing that he had wrought under an influence from the Pleroma. 

On the other hand, it will appear towards the latter part of this section, 
that Heracleon used the same term, Jerusalem, as symbolical of the Cre- 
ator who dwelt in the sEVENTH heaven, and as symbolical also of the 
Place of Souls. The Doctrina Orientalis, c. 63, treats the * other faithful 
souls? who were not yet admitted to the Middle Space as remaining for 
the present with the Creator ; a dubious expression, since it might mean 
in his realms ; yet I incline to understand it as meaning in his immediate 
presence. And the Ascension of Isaiah, which, of all Catholic docu- 
ments, has, on subordinate points, most resemblance with the Valentinian 
theology, places Adam and the saints in the ssVENTH heaven (ch. 9, 
6-9), differing therein from all other Catholic writings. — See more on 
this subject under § XXII. 6. 

7 Doctrina Orient. c. 63. 

8 Doctrina Orient. cc. 63, 64. 





§ Iv] THEOSOPHIC GNOSTICS. 21 


of Jesus, that mention is made in the following extracts 
from the * Doctrina Orientalis’ ® or ‘ Excerpta Theodoti.’ 

_ “ The Saviour as he descended was seen by the angels 
[of the Middle Space through which he passed ?°]; on 
which account they proclaimed the glad tidings of him” 
(Luke 2, 13, 14). 

_ * But he was also seen by Abraham and the other Just 
Men who were at rest in the right hand” [i. e. in the 





® The full title is Abstracts from the Writings of Theodotus and from 
the so-called Eastern Teaching of the Times of Valentinus. The docu- 
ment is printed in Potter’s edition of Clement, pp. 966-989. It is a 
miscellaneous collection from the writings of Theosophic Gnostics, comes 
to us in its present shape from the hand of a Catholic Christian, and no 
longer affords the means of determining in all cases the authorships of 
the respective passages, or the schools to which they belong. Perhaps 
Theodotus, a Gnostic, may have prepared a collection with comments, 
from which this may be a selection with further comments by a Catholic. 
Both parts of the citation in the text are from a Gnostic, if not from the 
same hand, for the one affirms and the other assumes a visible descent of 
the Saviour. 

According to the Philosophumena, a work of the third century 
erroneously ascribed to Origen, the Valentinians were divided concerning 

the body of Jesus into ‘ Eastern Teaching? and ‘Italian Teaching.’ 
The latter, to which Heracleon and Ptolemy belonged, regarded the body 
of Jesus as of the same material with man’s rational soul. . The former, 
of which were Axionicus and Ardesianes, regarded his body as spiritual. 
See p. 195, Miller’s edition. In the document called Eastern Teaching, 
however, are views apparently at variance with these attributed to Axi- 
onicus and Ardesianes. 

~ 1 The explanation in brackets is from Ireneus, 3, 10. 4 (3, 11). 

0 Just Men may here mean the Spiritual. The Valentinians regarded 
Achamoth or Wisdom as having inserted a spiritual seed into many of the 
Old Testament worthies. The Creator was ignorant as to the cause of 
their excellence, but was prompted by it to make them his prophets, etc. 

12 Acéidv, Aeéid, the neuter singular and plural of right hand, was used 
by the Valentinians to designate the heavenly places or persons of the 
Jewish Deity’s creation, and dpicrepty, dpiorepd, left hand, to designate 
the earthly. Ireneus, 1, 5, 1 and 2; 1, 6,1; 2,24, 6; Doctrina Orien- 
talis, c. 47, Clement, Opp. p. 980; Ecloge ex Script. Prophet. c. 3, 
Clement, Opp. p. 990; Theodoret, Heret. Fab. 1,7. The same.term was 
used by the author of the Clementine Homilies, Book 2, c. 16. 


22 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ Iv. 


heavens of the Jewish God], for Christ said (John 8, 56) 
She rejoiced when he saw my day, that is, the day of 
my advent in the flesh* Whence the Lord on rising 
again (or at his resurrection, évacrds) preached the Gos- 
pel to the Just who were at rest, and removed and trans- 
ferred them. And all will live in his shadow * [i. e. 
in the Middle Space]. For the Saviour’s presence there 
is the shadow of his glory with his Father. And the 
shadow cast by light is not darkness, but an enlighten- 
ment.?? ® 

There is still another passage of the New Testament, 
part of which, it would seem, was interpreted by the 
Valentinians — as the whole was by the Catholics — con- 
cerning Christ’s mission to the departed. It is partly 
quoted in the Doctrina Orientalis 1° as being used by the 
Valentinians ; and though their interpretation of it is not 
given there, it is pretty plainly implied in the opposing 
statements of Ireneus. The passage is in Ephesians 4, 
8—10:— 

* When he ascended up on high, he led captive the captives 
and gave gifts unto men. Now this, —* He ascended? — 





18 Though the Valentinians believed Christ to be destitute of a physi- 
cal body, they used the term flesh of the Logos, riv rod Adédyouv odpxa. 
Doctrina Orient. c. 16, Clement, Opp. p. 972. 

*¢ The day of the Saviour’s advent in the flesh ” is here introduced con- 
troversially. The Catholics, on the other hand, in order to avoid the 
force of the argument deducible from the statement that Abraham sAw — | 
not that he rorEsAw — Christ’s day, resorted to their position that Christ 
had been the special Deity of the Old Testament, the being who com- 
municated with Abraham and Moses. Thus he saw Christ’s day. Ire- 
neus, 4, 5, 2 and 3. 

14 A Valentinian term, as it would seem, for the Middle Space. Ire- 
neus, 1, 4, 1; compare 2, 4,3; 2, 8, 1-3. 

18 Doctrina Orientalis, c. 18, Clement, Opp. p. 973. Clement, it may 
be remarked, quotes Androcydes as saying that ** the so-called Ephesian 
Letters . . . indicate that darkness is shadowless, since it cannot have 
a shadow. But light is shadowy (or shadow-throwing), since it illumi- 
nates the shadow.” — Clement, Opp. p. 672, lines 16 — 20. 

16 C, 43, Clement, Opp. p. 979. 








§ IVv.] THEOSOPHIC GNOSTICS. 23 


what does it imply save that he also descended to the lowest " 
regions [namely, to those] of the earth. He who descended 
is the same as he who ascended ABOVE ALL THE HEAVENS.” 

Irenzeus does not meddle with the expression, ** ABOVE 
all the heavens,” which a Valentinian could urge as indi- 
cating a super-celestial place whereto Christ had ascended. 
Neither does he meet the argument that a Valentinian 
could have based on the logical sequence, since a descent 
to the Underworld of the Catholics was no more logically 
implied in CHRIst’s ascent to heaven than in that of 
Enoch or Elijah, whereas, on the Valentinian hypothesis, 
Christ must have descended to this lower world — to the 
(as compared with his former residence) lower regions of 
this earth— before he could have ascended. Irenzus 
simply quotes passages from the Old and New Testament 
to prove that Christ did literally descend to SUBTERRANEAN 
regions, and then exclaims, “If therefore the Lord... 
remained to the third day in ‘ the lower parts of the earth, 
how shall not they be confounded who say that the Lower 
Regions (Inferos) are THIS WORLD oF ouRs.?? 8 

The band of captives was by the Fathers usually un- 
derstood to mean those whom Christ had released from 


-imprisonment in the Underworld, and could equally by 


the Valentinians have been applied to those whom he 
carried to regions above. 

Heracleon’s views must be collected from his commen- 
tary on John’s Gospel, or rather from the fragments of it 
preserved by Origen. A word or two of explanation, 
however, may be prerequisite to its comprehension by 
the common reader. An idea, not yet extinct, prevailed 
among the Early Christians, and especially among the 
Alexandrine Catholics and Gnostics, that the sacred rec- 
ords had more senses than one. Thus Origen, whilst 
receiving the simple history of the two blind men who 
were cured at Jericho, regarded the two as emblematic of 
Judah and Israel, both blind till they came to Christ; 





1 Valentinian change, as it would seem, from * lower.? 
18 Cont. Heres. 5,31, 2. For the Manichean interpretation of this 


_-passage, see Routh’s Reliq. Sac. Vol. 5, p. 52. 


24 UNDERWORLD: MISSION. _ [§ Iv. 


and since some of the Evangelists mentioned but one 
blind man, this implied that Judah and Israel were be- 
come one people? Jerusalem, spiritually interpreted, 
meant, according to Origen, Paradise or Heaven; Jericho 
meant this earth ;*° Egypt, this, world?! and apparently 
also the Underworld.” 

According to Heracleon,? Capernaum, allegorically in- 
terpreted, meant ** these material or extreme parts of the 
world.” Jerusalem represented the * Psychical place,? or 
Place of Souls, — under the Creator’s dispensation as it 
would seem,—and located probably in the seventh 
heaven, since by the same term he elsewhere designates 
the Creator4 who dwelt in the seventh heaven. The 





19 Comment in Matt. Tom. 16, 12, Opp. 3, p, 732. D. 

20 The man who descended from Jerusalem to Jericho meant Adam or 
man in general, who descended from heaven to this earth (compare Ori- 
gen’s views in the second division of § XXI.) and fell among thieves. 
Comment in Matt. Tom. 16, 9, Opp. 3, p. 728. C. D. 

21 In Genes. Homil. 15, 5, Opp. 2, p. 101, col. 1. F. 

22 Origen, after quoting Gen. 46, 3, 4, ** Fear not to descend into Egypt : 
. . « Iwill descend with you into Egypt, and will finally recall youthence.”? 
remarks ; ** He was not finally recalled from Egypt, since he died there. 
For it would be absurd for any one to treat Jacob as recalled by God be- 
cause his body was brought back, according to which interpretation it 
would be untrue that * God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.’ 
It is not suitable, therefore, that this should be understood of a dead 
body, but it should be found correct of the living, and flourishing. . . . 
The statement, ‘J will finally recall you thence,? means, I think, as I 
have above said, that at the end of the ages his only-begotten Son, for 
the salvation of the world, descended even to the Lower Regions, and 
thence recalled the first man.?? — In Gen. Homil. 15, 5, Opp. 2, p. 101. 
According to a portion of the context, omitted for brevity’s sake, the 
passage may be spiritually understood either of Christ descending to this 
world, or of Adam ejected from Paradise. 

23 Origen’s citations from Heracleon are collected at the close of Mas- 
suet’s Irenzus, where the above passages will, with one exception, be found 
on pp. 365, 366. 

2 Tren. Opp. p. 368. | Ptolemy, unless Ireneus misunderstood him, 
used this term Jerusalem to designate Wisdom, who dwelt in the Middle 
Space. Ireneus, 1, 5, 3. 


: 
. 
’ 
| 





oa | 


§iv.] THEOSOPHIC GNOSTICS. 2 


outer court of the temple symbolized * the Assembly of 
the Psychical WHO WERE SAVED, outside of the Pleroma,” 
i.e. in the Middle Space. The Holy of Holies, Origen 
understood him to regard as typifying the Pleroma. 

- Christ’s descent to Capernaum, spiritually interpreted, 
meant, according to Heracleon, his descent to these ex- 
treme parts of the world. His ascent to Jerusalem meant 
the ascent to the Place of Souls. The whip of small 
cords wherewith the buyers and sellers were ejected from 
the outer court was emblematic of the powers of the 
Holy Spirit; and its wooden handle, of Christ's cross, 
whereby * the Assembly ?—1i. e. the Catholics or merely 
psychical — were purified from everything wicked, and 
rendered no longer a den of thieves, but the house of 
God. - 

There may be obscurity as to some portions of Heracle- 
on’s allegory, but it is pretty evident that he regarded the 
ascending Saviour as first visiting the * Place of Souls? 
under the Creator’s dispensation. 

If a word of conjecture be allowed me, the Valentinians 
had merely interpreted the ordinary Catholic ideas of 
Christ’s Underworld mission in what they deemed an ex- 
alted manner. The Pleroma was the world of light, the 


‘Middle Space that of shadow, this Underworld where we 


dwell, the region of darkness.” They may have termed 
it Hades, for one etymology of Hades (4 idys) implied a 
place without light, and the word Inferi, above quoted 





%5 In the Doctrina Orientalis, c. 37, is a statement of Valentinian opin- 


_ ions, to be quoted in a note under § XXII. 6, which identifies the ‘ crea- 


tion’ or world ‘ of darkness’ with the § left-hand places,’ that is, with 
this earthly world. 
Plato seems to have anticipated the Valentinians in comparing this 
world to the lower regions. He is quoted by Clement of Alexandria as 
having said, ** Good souls, leaving the super-celestial place, endure to 
come into this Tartarus.°»—Clem. Alex. Strom. 1, 67, Opp. p. 355, 
lines 20-22. And the Ascension of Isaiah is equally decided as to 
the comparative darkness of this world. The pseudo-prophet, after de- 
scribing the brilliancy of the sixth heaven, exclaims, ** Wherefore be 
assured, O Hezekiah, Josheb, my son, and Micah, that great darkness is 


here, darkness indeed great.?? — Ch. 8, 24. 


26 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ v. 


from the Latin translation of Irenzeus, is elsewhere the 
rendering in that writer of the word Hades. 

By the Underworld they understood, according to the 
passage already quoted from Irenzeus, *this world of 
ours,?? which, by comparing it with the same expression 
elsewhere, would seem to mean what was below the fir- 
mament and subject to the Cosmocrator”* or World-ruler, 
that is, the Devil, who in Catholic theology was Lord of 
the Underworld ;—a view to be developed in § XIV. . 

Yet it is probable that they sometimes extended their 
idea of this Underworld so as to include the whole mate- 
rial creation of the Jewish Deity; both his heavens and 
earth. In fact, as it was only by ascending to the Middle 
Space that the region of twilight, or shadow, was attained, 
the conclusion is inevitable that the realms below were 
of darkness, and in the Doctrina Orientalis (¢. 80) the 
"OySods, Middle Space,?’ is contrasted, as the region of 
life, with the world (this Underworld), the region of death. 





§V. MANICHAANS. 


THE Manicheans, so called from their leader, Manes, 
arose in the latter half of the third century. Perhaps 
the document entitled “* Discussion of Archelaus with 
Manes,” from which an extract will be found under 
§ XIV., may belong to the close of the same century. So 
far, however, as concerns any of their opinions directly 
bearing upon Christ’s mission, or aid, to the departed, we 
must have recourse to documents of the fourth century, 
and the reader must make allowance for any change 
which he supposes that their views may have undergone, 
subsequently to the period under discussion. 





2% Treneus, 1,5, 4 (1,1). Cp. Doct. Orient. 37, in preceding note. 

27 On this meaning of Ogdoad compare pp. 124, 125, and Philosophum. 
pp. 191, 192, (195%). Tertullian uses it for the Pleroma. ** Achamoth 
[born in the Pleroma] was called Ogdoas by reason of [her] primal, pa- 
rental [locality, the] Ogdoad.?? — Adv. Valentin. 20. 





§ v.] MANICHANS. 27 


The Manichzans had mingled Persian theology with 
Christianity. They believed in two Principles or Beings, 
a good and an evil one, and in two abodes for men, a 
place of light or happiness, and one of darkness or 
misery. The departed who were rescued by Christ 
must, on their theory, be delivered, not from such an 
abode as the good might have temporarily occupied, but 
- from hell, or Tartarus.1 The following extract is from the 
words of Faustus as given in Augustine’s work, “ Against 
Faustus the Manichzean,”? the especial subject of consider- 
ation being the Saviour’s words, ** Many shall come from 
the east and west, and recline with Abraham and Isaae and 
Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens.”? (Matt. 8, 11.) 

“¢ Grant,” says Faustus, * that they (Abraham and the 
Patriarchs) are now in the kingdom of the heavens, — 
that they are in that place in which they had no belief 
and for which they never hoped, as is evident from their 
books. Yet what is written concerning them is confirmed 
even by your confession, that, liberated after a long inter- 
val by Christ our Lord — namely, by his mystical? suffer- 
ing — from the dark and penal custody of the Lower 
Regions, whither the deserts of their life coerced them, 
they attained to this place, if indeed they have attained 
arise, 3 

* But Luke, although he regarded this [narrative of the 
centurion] as a memorable event, and necessary to be in- 
serted among the wonderful deeds of Christ in his Gospel, 
yet makes no mention there of Abraham and Isaac and 
Jacob. . . . But you may see that, as I say, I shall not 
be over-contentious with you concerning this passage, 
since the defence which I before established — and which 





1 Augustine, who for a time was himself a Manichzan, seems to have 
agreed with his former associates on this point. ‘I have nowhere 
found,” he says, **that the resting-place of susT souLs is called the Un- 
derworld (Inferos),°? and he appears to have been embarrassed by this 
belief. See the foregoing, and a number of other citations from his writ- 
ings, collected in Pearson, Exposit. of the Creed, Art. 5 (pp. 362, 364, 365, 
edit. New York, 1844). ¥ 

2 The Manichxans did not believe the REAL suffering of Christ. 


. 28 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ VI. 


you cannot deny —is sufficient, that before the advent 
of our Lord all the Patriarchs and Prophets of Israel lay 
in Tartarean darkness according to their deserts, whence, 
if ever liberated, they were brought back to the light by 
Christ.”? 8 
- The confession above referred to is elsewhere dealt 
with as follows. Faustus attributes to his opponents, the 
Catholics, —and without denial from Augustine, — the 
limitation to the Jews of Christ’s favor towards the de- 
parted, on the ground that the Gentiles worshipped idols, 
and the Jews the omnipotent God. ‘So, says Faustus, 
“the worship of (your) omnipotent God [equally with 
idol worship] sends people to Tartarus, and they who 
worshipped the Father need the aid of the Son.”?# 





§ VI. UNDERWORLD MISSION THE OBJECT OF 
CHRIST'S DEATH. 


THE early-Christians-desired-to-find-some-dignified-and 
striking object for Christ’s death, which they might urge 
against the Jews and Gentiles, and wherewith they might 
dazzle their own minds. “The mission among the departed 
was seized upon as~this object. The thought-—doesnot 
seem to have suggested itself, that he could have per- 
formed such a mission without dying. 

Ireneus tells us: ** Others, however, [by] saying, * The 
Holy Lord remembered his dead who were already fallen 
asleep in the earth, and descended to them, that he might 
raise (uti erigeret) for the purpose of saving them, have 
assigned THE REASON WHY HE SUFFERED THESE THINGS.” 2 
And again: the Saviour, ** coming the second time [to his 
disciples who were asleep in the garden], aroused and 








8 Augustine, cont. Faust. 33, 1, 2, 3, Opp. 6, p. 106. E. H. K. 
* Ibid. G. 

1 Possibly a translation of a dvacrp. 

2 Cont. Heres. 4, 33, 12. 








§ vi] THE OBJECT OF CHRIST'S DEATH. 29 


raised them, signifying that HIS SUFFERING WAS THE 
[MEANS OF] AWAKENING HIS SLEEPING DISCIPLES, on whose 
account also he * descended into the lower parts of the 
earth. 8 And again: ** When the Lord was about To 
SUFFER FOR THIS PURPOSE, THAT HE MIGHT ANNOUNCE 
THE GLAD TIDINGS TO ABRAHAM AND TO THOSE WHO WERE 
WITH HIM, OF THE OPENING OF THE INHERITANCE”; or 
perhaps the translation should be as follows: “¢ And on 
this account the Lord, — when about To SUFFER, THAT HE 
MIGHT ANNOUNCE THE GLAD TIDINGS TO ABRAHAM AND TO 


THOSE WHO WERE WITH HIM OF THE OPENING OF THE IN- 


HERITANCE,— when he had given thanks, said to his 
disciples,” etc.* 

Some of the connection, which for brevity’s sake is 
omitted, renders it additionally probable that the last 
citation is an imitation of the following passage in the 
Epistle ascribed to Barnabas: ** Learn, therefore, how he 
endured to suffer this at the hands of men... . He— 
since it behooved him to appear in the flesh, that he 
might destroy [or empty, vacuam faceret] death, and 
manifest the resurrection from the dead — ENDURED THAT 
HE MIGHT RENDER TO THE FATHERS WHAT HAD BEEN 
PROMISED THEM.’ 5 

Clement, treating liberation from the Underworld as the 
necessary consequence of accepting Christ’s teachings, 
assumes, we have already seen, as a conceded point, that 
“THE SOL rDORD’S"DESCENT TO THE UNDER-/ 
WORLD WAS TO PREACH THE GOSPEL.?®°-———————— 

Origen, treating a passage of the Psalms as if prophet- 

















ically spoken in the person of the Saviour, exclaims: 


“There is nothing wonderful, therefore, in even the Saviour 
saying, * I went to sleep and slept? since he effected so 





8 Cont. Heres. 4, 22, 1 (4, 39). 
~ £ Cont. Heres. 5, 33, 1. 

5 C. 5 (4, 10). 

6 See § III. 2. The Saviour’s death and descent to the Underworld 
were so identified by Early Christians as both belonging to the history of 
his humiliation, that Clement, in assigning the reason for the one, no 


doubt, considered himself as equally assigning the reason for the other. 


\ 


\ 
\ 
\ 


f 
j 
/ 


/ 


30 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ VI. 


much more for the salvation of souls during the time of 
his separation from the body.’?? And in his work against 
Celsus the Heathen, he quotes from Paul (Rom. 14, 9): 
“6 On this account Christ died and rose again, that he 
might be the Lord both of the dead and living?” ; and adds, 
“You see in this that JESUS DIED IN ORDER THAT HE 
MIGHT BE LORD OF THE DEAD, and rose again in order that 
he might be Lord, not of the dead only, but also of the 
living. And the Apostle, by the dead over whom Christ 
should be Lord, understood those who are thus mentioned 
in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (15, 52): * The 
trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised incor- 
ruptible.? ?? 8 w 

Elsewhere in answering persons who deemed Samuel 
too good for the Underworld, Origen says: ** Was (Christ) 
no longer the Son of God when — he was in the regions 
under the earth, * that every knee might bend at the name 
of Jesus Christ, of those in heaven, and on the earth, and 
OF THOSE UNDER THE EARTH. ??® And in the same Homily 
Origen, addressing his congregation, asks, ** Why should 
you fear to say that EVERY place has need of Jesus 
Christ ? ? 1° | 

Even Tertullian, who—in his zeal to force upon 
Christians his theological peculiarity, that the Under- 
world was still their doom — does not shrink from the 
position that Christ’s death and abode in the Underworld 
were the necessary consequences of his human nature,” 





7 Comment. in Ps. 3, 6 (3, 5), Opp. 2, p. 558. C. D. 

8 Cont. Celsum, 2, 65, Opp. 1, p. 436. E. 

9 In Lib. Regum Hom. 2, Opp. 2, p. 496. E. Comp. Philip. 2, 10. 

10 In Lib. Regum Hom. 2, Opp. 2, p. 495. C. D. 

11 66 By the public opinion of the whole human race, we pronounce 
death A DEBT DUE TO NATURE. This the voice of God has stipulated ; 
this every born thing has accorded, . . . which (the God of Jacob) ex- 
acted even from his Messiah. . .. Enoch and Elijah were translated, .. . 
but they are reserved to die, that they may extinguish Antichrist with 
their blood.?? — De Anima, c. 50, Opp. p. 349. B. D. The last idea 
seems to be founded on the eleventh chapter of the Apocalypse. Again : 
6 Though Christ was divine (deus), yet, because he was also man, being 


2 
"a 


Sr CO 








a sai lalla 


crit eal Si as 


§ vil.] CONTROVERSY WITH THE HEATHENS. 31 


even Tertullian seems obliged in the same passage to 
soften or cover his position by saying, ** He did not ascend 
the heights of heaven before he ‘descended to the lower 
parts of the earth, THAT THERE HE MIGHT MAKE THE PATRI- 
ARCHS AND PROPHETS PARTICIPATORS OF HIMSELF.?? 1? 

Lactantius, after quoting Daniel 7, 13, remarks: ** So as 
to show... that [Christ], having assumed the human 
form and mortal condition, should teach justice and... . 
should be adjudged even to death, that he might also con- 
quer and unseal the Underworld.” 18 

The author of the Discussion between Archelaus and 
Manes goes further than others. ** My Lord Jesus Christ, 
he says, ** saw fit to come in a HUMAN body [i. e. in one 
which gained him admission to the Underworld; see 
§ XVII] that he might ‘ vindicate, not himself, but 
Moses and those who in succession after him had been 
oppressed by the violence of Death.”? The passage, as 
more fully cited under § XIV., implies that he treated 
this, not alone as the object of the Saviour’s death, but of 
his coming. 

_To the above should be added a passage of Justin Martyr, 

and another from Cyprian, which will be found in the 
sixteenth section, and which therefore are here omitted. 





§ VII. CONTROVERSY WITH THE HEATHENS. 


Or the Heathen works against Christianity during the 
first three centuries, a few fragments only remain ; among 
which, the quotations from Celsus, preserved in Origen’s 
reply to him, are the chief. One of these quotations 
evinces that the Christians, in their intercourse or debates 





dead and buried according to the Scriptures, he also satisfied the law [of 
nature], by going through the form of human death in the Underworld.” 
— De Anima, c. 55, Opp. p. 353. B. 

2 Tbid. Compare Scorpiace, ch. 7, quoted on p. 53. 

8 Div. Inst. 4, 12. 

14 Compare the use of this apparently technical expression by Arnobius 


‘in § XXII. 3. 


32 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ vin. 


with the Pagans, had given a prominence to the doctrine 
of Christ’s mission below, which was met by ridicule. 

Celsus says: ** You of course do not confess touching 
him [Christ], that, having failed to convince men here, he 
betook himself to the Underworld to convince those 
there.?? 1 

To the foregoing, Origen replies with some warmth : 
*¢ We will, however, say this, though (Celsus) may not 
like it, that while in the body he convinced not a few 
[only], but so many that, on account of the multitude of 
believers, a plot was laid against him, and [then] with a 


soul divested of its body he discoursed to souls divested — 


of their bodies, converting to himself such as were willing, 
or those whom for reasons (Adyous) known to himself he 
recognized as disposed to improvement??? 

At a later period than the above, Arnobius wrote against 
the Heathens. Of one passage in his work, Christ’s mis- 
sion to the departed affords the only natural explanation. 
The Heathens are represented as asking, * If Christ was 
sent by God that he might free unhappy souls from de- 
struction, what have former generations deserved (i. e. if 
without Christ all perish, what destruction have they not 
laid up for themselves), who by the condition of mortality 
passed away before his advent??? Arnobius answers, 
¢¢ Can you know what has been done to the souls of former 
times? Whether to them also, by some method deter- 
mined on, and foreseen, assistance has been given? Can 
you, I say, know that which could be known IF CHRIST 
WERE YOUR TEACHER, . . . whether they would have been 
permitted to die unless Christ at a fixed time had come 
to their assistance as a preserver? Lay aside these cares 
and dismiss questions which you do not understand. To 
them also royal mercy HAS BEEN imparted, and the divine 
benefits have equally flowed on all. THEY HAVE BEEN 
PRESERVED. THEY HAVE BEEN LIBERATED, and have laid 
aside the lot and condition of Mortality.?? 8 





1 Cont. Celsum, 2, 43, Vol. 1, p. 419. C. 
- 2 Thid. C. D. 

8 Adv. Gentes, 2,63. On the subject of Mortality, its lot and condi- 
tion, see Appendix, Note B. 


fad 
le 


f 





§ viit.] FORETOLD. 33 


The Heathen, it appears, could learn touching Christ’s 
aid to the departed by becoming Christians, — * if Christ 
were their teacher”’?— why not sooner? Arnobius was 
less prone than some of the early apologists to mingle a 
variety of doctrines with the main points at issue between 
Christians and Pagans, and herein he showed his judg- 
ment. Perhaps in the present case he was only adhering 
to his custom. Or perhaps Heathen ridicule had induced 
Christians to place the doctrine of Christ's Underworld 
mission — however satisfactory to themselves — in the 
category of those teachings which they developed only to 
the converted. 





§ VIII. THE UNDERWORLD MISSION FORETOLD. 


Many passages of the Old Testament were supposed by 
the early Fathers to predict the Saviour’s descent and 
mission in the Underworld, and exercised, no doubt, 
much influence in giving the latter doctrine its currency. 
A portion of them, therefore, are subjoined, chiefly from 
Origen, who is the only writer of the second or third cen- © 
tury that has left us commentaries to any extent on 
Scripture. 

Origen speaks of the Underworld or its ruler as “ that 
(Death) concerning which it is written in a prophet who 
speaks as in the person of the Lord (Hosea 13, 14), * Z will 
take them out of the grasp. of the Underworld, and will 
liberate them from Death. ?? } | 

“Hear the Prophet’s statement (Hosea 6, 2) : * The Lord 
will resuscitate us after two days, and on the third day we 
shall rise again, and shall live in his presence.? % ? 

“MANY BODIES OF THE SLEEPING SAINTS AROSE WITH 
HIM, AND ENTERED INTO THE HOLY CITY? [the heavenly 
Jerusalem], whereby the words of the Prophet are ac- 
complished in which he says of Christ (Ps. 68, 18), ¢ As- 





1 Comment. in Rom. Lib. 5, 1, Opp. 4, p. 551. A. 
_ 2 Hom. in Exod. Lib. 5, 2, Opp. 2, p. 144. F. 


34 ‘UNDERWORLD MISSION, [§ Vin. 


cending on high he led captive the captives? and in this 
manner by his resurrection he destroyed the kingdoms of 
Death out of which it is written that he liberated the 
captives.” 8 

66 (Ps. 6, 4,5.) ‘Zurn, Lord. Free my soul. Save me for 
thy mercy’s sake ; since in Death no one can remember thee. 
In the Underworld who shall confess thee?? And (David) 
not only beseeches the Lord himself to free his soul from 
Death, but prophetically manifests that he had obtained his 
petition by saying (Ps.6, 9), * Zhe Lord listened to the voice 
of my lamentation. The Lord listened to my supplication. 
The Lord accepted my prayer? For by these words he 
shadowed forth his resuscitation from death, which took 
place after the resurrection of Christ.?* 

“6 (Ps, 71, 20.) * How many sore afflictions didst thou dis- 
pense to me! Yet, turning, thou madest me alive and 
broughtest me up from the abysses of the earth. These 
things are manifestly spoken concerning the resurrection 
from the dead.” ® 

(Ps. 77, 16.) *** The Abysses were troubled? The Abysses 


mean the Infernal Powers [the powers of the Abyss], ~ 


which were troubled at the presence of Christ.’ ® 

*¢ David also, prophesying concerning him, said (Ps. 86, 
13), * Thow hast drawn my soul out of the depths of the Un- 
derworld, — ex inferno inferiori.” 7 | 

(Ps, 22, 4,5.) *** Our fathers hoped on thee ; they hoped 
and thou didst liberate them, they cried to thee and were not 
disappointed???’ The connection of this citation will be 
found under the next head. 

(Ps. 3,5.) %** J went to sleep and slept. I awoke again 
because the Lord espoused my cause? We indeed think that 
these words have nothing human [in their application, nor 





8 In Rom. Lib. 5,1, Opp. 4, p. 551. B.C. Compare Justin’s interpre- 
tation of this passage in a note to § XIX. 

* In Psalmos, Opp. 2, p. 517. B. C. 

5 In Psalmos, Opp. 2, p. 760, E. 

6 In Psalmos, Opp. 2, p. 770, B. 

7 Treneus, 5, 31, 1. 

8 Justin, Dial. cc. 100, 101, p. 196. A. B. 


re J . 
Oe ae Oe eee Ee ee ‘ 





§ vu] — FORETOLD, 35. 


anything] appropriate to the history of David when he 
fled from the face of Absalom, . . . and what wonder if 
such a sleep on the part of the Saviour were not wholly 
an idleness of the soul, but an idleness as regards the use 
of its organ, the body? . . . There is nothing wonderful, 
therefore, in even the Saviour saying, *I went to sleep and 
- slept, since he effected so much more for the salvation of 
souls during the time of his separation from the body, 
according to what is said in the Catholic Epistle of Peter. 
[Here Origen quotes 1 Pet. 3, 19.] After this sleep his 
Father, espousing his cause, awoke him (or raised him 
up).??? 

‘*We must inquire also into those things which the 
Saviour says through the mouth of the Prophet David 
that he experienced (Ps. 88, 4, 5), * J became as an unassisted 
man, free among the dead.’ 9 10 

“¢¢No ONE TAKES MY LIFE, BUT I LAY IT DOWN OF My- 
SELF” This neither Moses nor any one of the Patriarchs 
or Prophets, nor yet of the Apostles, said, . . . since the 
lives of all men are taken from them. This being con- 
sidered, the passage in the eighty-seventh [eighty-eighth] 
Psalm will become clear, which is spoken as in the person 
of the Saviour, * Free among the dead.??? 

* By him you pronounce Death conquered, who not 
only laid down his life of his own-will, but resumed it by 
_ his power; who alone was * free among the dead, and 
whom alone Death could not hold.? 2 

Ps. 18,5. %¢ The pangs of the Underworld encircled me, 
the snares of Death were upon me? Christ in his human 
nature says these things. .. . Yet he never became a son 
of the Underworld.” # 





® Origen, Opp. 2, p. 551. D. E. and p. 553. B.C. D. Justin in his 
Dialogue with the Jew (c. 97, Opp. p. 193. B.), Clement of Alexandria 
(Strom. 5, 106, Opp. p. 712, lines 25, 26), and Cyprian (Testimon. 2, 24, 
p. 47), quote the same passage asa prophecy of the Lord’s resurrection. 

1 Origen, Opp. 4, p. 35. C. 

1 Idem, Opp. 4, p. 298. C. 

2 Idem, Opp. 4,p. 566. C. Compare extract from Origen in § XVIII. 3. 
_ 8 Idem, Opp. 2, p. 605. C. E. 


~ 


36 UNDERWORLD MISSION. {§ vim. 


Ps, 49, 14. °° As sheep they were placed in the Under- 
world. Death was their Shepherd (or Ruler)? ... But 
manifestly the same person who says (Ps. 16, 10), * Thou 
wilt not leave my soul in the Underworld? says also this 
(Ps, 49, 15), * But God will ransom my soul [ from the grasp 
of the Underworld, when he assumes my cause].? 9? 14 

Is, 45, 1,2. %* Thus saith the Lord God to his Christ (or 
anointed), Cyrus,... I will beat down the brazen gates and ~ 
break the iron bars? Ps. 107, 10, 14,16. ** Such as sit in 
darkness and. in the shadow of death, bound in affliction 
and iron. . .. He brought them out of darkness and the 
shadow of death, . .. for he crushed the brazen gates and 
broke the tron bars.” Tertullian, alluding to one or both 
of these passages, speaks of that period in Christ’s exist- 
ence ** which broke in the adamantine gates of Death, and 
the brazen bars of the Underworld;”? © a conception 
which is amplified in the account of Christ’s descent, that 
was appended by a later hand to the Acts of Pilate. 
Heathen phraseology concerning the gates of Tartarus, 
and perhaps of the Underworld, could readily suggest 
such an application of the passages, nor would Christian 
modes of interpretation have rendered it difficult to re- 
gard Cyrus as a type of Christ. 

‘In the Ascension of Isaiah, the Pseudo Prophet says: 
*¢ With respect to the descent of the Beloved into hell 
(the Underworld), behold, it is written in the section [of 
my public prophecies] in which the Lord says, * Zo! my 
Son shall be endowed with wisdom? 38 The section in- 





14-Tdem, Opp. 2, p. 720. E. . 

15 Tertul. de Resurrect. Carnis. c. 44, p. 412. B. See also the similar 
interpretation of Origen, in Cant. Cant., Hom. 2, 12, Opp. 3, p. 22. C. 

16 See Appendix, Note D. 

lv Homer assigns **iron gates, and brazen sills,?? or perhaps ** brazen 
door-posts,”? to Tartarus. — J/iad, 8, 15. Virgil represents the access to 
the same as through an **immense gate” with **columns of solid adamant, 
so that no strength of men, nor even the inhabitants of heaven, could 
destroy it.°? — dined, 6, 551-553. Tertullian’s language, or perhaps the 
Latin translation of the Old Testament which he used, may have been 
accommodated to the phraseology which Virgil had rendered familiar. 

18 Ascension of Isaiah, 4, 21. 





§ vil.] FORETOLD. 37 


tended may either be Is. 42, 1—7, to the use of which by 
the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas the reader will imme- 
diately be referred, or ll, 2, 11, which last-mentioned verse 
might be allegorically understood as meaning a restora- 
tion from the Underworld, or 52, 13-53, 12, a passage 
commonly interpreted of Christ’s suffering and death, and 
therefore regarded as implying his descent to the Under- 
world. | 

Origen’s interpretation of the Twenty-second Psalm, which 
will be found in the fifteenth section, is, to avoid repeti- 
tion, omitted here, as also his interpretation of Gen. 46, 3, 4, 
already given in a note on p. 24. Besides these the reader 
may wish to examine a quotation by Barnabas in § XIX. 
Other passages might be adduced, but I believe that the 
above are the most striking. The reader will probably 
think that their appositeness to a supposed event was 
mistaken for a prediction of it. The tendency to such - 
mistakes has not yet passed away. 

There was, besides the above, a spurious passage of the 
Old Testament which claims attention here. Justin 
quotes it from Jeremiah, as will appear in the next sec- 
tion. Irenzeus quotes it at one time from Isaiah, at an- 
other from Jeremiah, at another from ‘a prophet,? and 
at another so as not even to imply necessarily that it 
belonged to the Old Testament. His quotations are as 
follows: ** Isaiah says, * The Holy Lord of Israel remem- 
bered his dead who had fallen asleep under the earth of 
burial, and descended to them to preach the salvation which 
is from him, and that he might save them.” *° And again: 
“ As Jeremiah says, * The Holy Lord of Israel remembered 
again his dead who had already fallen asleep in the earth 
of burial, and descended to them that he might preach his 
salvation to them for the purpose of saving them. 7 
Elsewhere the citation concludes, * that he might DRAW 
THEM OUT (uti erueret eos) and save them?™* And again, 





19 Compare it with Origen’s interpretation of Jacob’s recall from Egypt, 
on p. 24, in note 22. 
® Cont. Heres. 3, 20, 4 (3, 23). 


21 Cont. Heres: 4, 22, 1 (4, 39). 22 Cont. Heres. 4, 33, 1 (4, 53). 


38 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ rx. 


“that he might RAISE (uti erigeret) for the purpose of sav- 
_ ing them.» And again: ** The Lord remembered his dead 
SAINTS who had already fallen asleep in the earth of burial, 
and descended to them TO DRAW THEM OUT (extrahere eos) 
and to save them.?? 4 

The foregoing unquestionably did not belong to the 
Old Testament, though Justin charges its erasure on the 
Jews. It may have been an outright forgery ; or perhaps 
it was an explanatory note on some passage of the Sep- 
tuagint, which a Christian, over-confident of its correct- 
ness, had interpolated into the text, or which, without 
thought of interpolation, had been placed in the margin. 
In this latter case copyists may have been unable, as 
sometimes happened, to distinguish between its claims 
and those of such passages as had been placed in the 
margin because accidentally omitted in the text. Justin 
and Irenzeus alone quote it. Probably its spuriousness 
was detected as soon as attention was directed to it. 





§ IX. CONTROVERSY WITH THE JEWS. 


IT can be readily imagined, that the Christians would 
draw from the preceding storehouse of texts against any 
who would listen to Old Testament prophecies. Some 
evidence is extant of verbal controversies between the 
Early Christians and the Jews, though whether any of the 
latter committed their side of the question to writing we 
do not know. If they did, the last scrap of their works 
has perished. On the Christian side we have a work by 
Justin Martyr, being his own account of a dialogue, real 
or fictitious, between himself and a Jew; also a tract 
by Tertullian, intended, as he says, to supply deficiencies 
in a late verbal controversy between a Christian and a 
Jewish proselyte, which, though it lasted the whole day, 





23 Cont. Heres. 4, 33, 12 (4, 65 or 66). 
24 Cont. Heres. 5, 31, 1. 


ee ee es 


I —— , = 


: 
4 





-§ 1x.] CONTROVERSY WITH THE JEWS. 39 


had been confused and rendered unsatisfactory by noisy 
interruptions from spectators of both parties; and a 
collection of * Proof Texts? or “Testimonies? by Cyprian, 
arranged without argument under distinct heads. Casual 
expressions on the controverted points may also be found 
in other works of the Fathers. 

Justin tells Trypho the Jew, ** From the words of Jere- 
miah they (the Jews) have in like manner erased the fol- 
lowing: * The Lord God remembered his dead from among 
Israel, who had fallen asleep under the earth of the sepul- 
chre, and descended to them that he might announce to them 
his salvation? + 

On the probable origin of the foregoing I have already 
remarked in the preceding section. It differs as here 
cited from any quotation of it by Irenzeus, though whether 
the difference be attributable to Justin or to an error in 
transcribing his works may be a question. It was an 
object with Justin to show that even the Jews needed 


Christianity for their salvation, and as his memoriter cita- 


tions of genuine passages are sometimes more apposite 
to his argument than the passages themselves if literally 
transcribed, the change in the present instance may be 


owing to the same cause.2, He makes no comment on the 





1 Dial. c. 72, p. 170. B. C. 

2 The Greek of the passage is somewhat barbarous, which would, how- 
ever, be no great objection to the supposition that Justin had used it. 
At present it reads, "Euvijo0n 5¢ Kipios 6 Oeds dd ‘Iopahd Trav vexpav ad- 
700, Tov Kexouunuévwn eis yiv xouaros, Kal KaTéBn mpds adrods dvayyeNioa- 
cat abrois Td cwrhp.ov arod, and I doubt whether it will admit a differ- 
ent translation from that above given, and,which, it may be remarked, is 
adopted in the editions of Maran and Otto. Dr. Pott apparently under- 
stands it in the same way. See the Novum Testamentum, edit. Koppe, 
Vol. 9, Part 2, p. 290. 

Critics suggest that the abbreviation OEOD ATIO might be mistaken 
for 9EOS ATO, and that it originally read, *The holy Lord God of Israel,” 
etc.; and I would suggest, that, by reading 6 Ocds rod (instead of amd) 
"Iopahr, —* The Lord God of Israel remembered his dead, etc.,? — the 
Greek would, at a small change, be improved. Neither change would 
make it accord with Ireneus, nor would either alteration, probably, be a 


correct one. 


40 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ Ix. 


passage, intending, as he says, to restrict himself. to texts 
which his opponents admitted as genuine. 

Proceeding with this intention, he expatiates with te- 
dious diffuseness on the Twenty-second Psalm, of which 
he says, ** I will show you that this whole Psalm was 
spoken of the * Messiah, ”° and, according to his inter- 
pretation, it referred to his sufferings. The passage, ** not 
to my ignorance,” * (which is found in the Septuagint in- 
stead of ** am not silent,?? in the common version) indicated 
the ignorance, not of Jesus, ** but of those who, thinking 
that he was not the Messiah, supposed that they could 
kill him, and that he would remain like a common man 
in the Underworld.* Justin. then finds in the third 
verse occasion for a digression on the names and human 
birth of Jesus, after which he says, ** From her (Mary) 
was he born, ... through whom God _ overthrows the 
Serpent and the angels who resemble him, . . . and EF- 
FECTS DELIVERANCE FROM DEATH TO SUCH AS repent of 
evil deeds and BELIEVE ON HIM. And the next portion 
of the Psalm, in which it is said [verses 4, 5], *Owr 
Fathers hoped on Thee, they hoped and THOU DIDST LIBER- 
ATE THEM; they cried to thee and were not disappointed? 
... manifests that those fathers also CONFESSED HIM who 
had hoped on and were saved by God, ... he himself 
indicating that he was to be saved by the same God, and 
not boasting that he could do anything by his own coun- 
sel or strength. For UPON EARTH HE DID THE SAME. ... 
He answered, * Why do you call me good? One is good ; 
my Father in heaven.” ® 

The argument is based on Justin’s affirmation that 
through Christ God effects deliverance from death — that 
is, from the Underworld, whither the fathers had gone 
—to such as believe on him. The Psalm says that God 
did liberate the fathers. But since Christ is the medium 
of liberation only for such as BELIEVE ON HIM, it follows 





8 Dial. c. 99, p. 194. C. D. 

* Verse 2, or, in the Septuagint, 21, 3 
§ Dial. c. 99, p. 195. A. 

6 Dial. cc. 100, 101, p. 196. A. B. 








§ 1x.] CONTROVERSY WITH THE JEWS. Al 


that the fathers must have * confessed him.? The terms 
for confession, duoAoy<tv as used here, and efopodroyeiv as 
used by Clement of Alexandria,’ touching the confession 
by the Gentiles in the Underworld, are merely weaker 
and stronger forms of the same word. That Justin was 
thinking of events in the Underworld is evident from his 
remark, that ‘UPON EARTH? Jesus showed the same hu- 
mility. To discern the humility, we must understand the 
Psalm, as did Justin, to be spoken by the Saviour, and he 
is thus made to attribute to God a liberation of which he 
was himself the active agent. ‘* THoU,” he says, ** didst 
liberate them.” Justin had already put into his mouth 
other passages which indicated that he looked to God for 
his own deliverance.® To be ‘saved? seems here, as in 
the passage of Clement already alluded to, to mean de- 
liverance from the Underworld. The fathers of course 
were not, in Justin’s opinion, liberated from physical 
death. 

That Justin, according to a conception which will be 
presented in §§ XIV.—XVIII., may have included in the 
idea of deliverance from death, that of deliverance from 
Satan, Lord of the Underworld, is not improbable ; for 
_after interpreting the roaring lion (verse 13) to mean 
Herod, he says, **Or else by the lion that roared upon 
him he meant the Devil”? * And the request [verses 20, 
21] that his soul should be saved from the sword, the 
mouth of the lion, and the grasp of the dog, was a peti- 
tion that no one might lord it over his soul, even as we, 





7 Strom. 6, 6, p. 764, line 3, quoted in § III. 2. 
8 “He rose the third day. This was thus expressed by David [Ps. 3, 
4, 5]: *I cried to the Lord with my voice, and he hearkened to me from his 
holy mountain. I went to sleep and slept. I awoke because the Lord es- 
poused my cause.’ 9? — Dial. c. 97, p. 193. B. In another passage Justin 
gives some prominence to the fact that the Saviour looked to God for his 
own deliverance. £*If,?? says he, **the Son of God affirmed that he could 
be saved neither because of his being Son nor on account of his strength 
nor wisdom, but that, though sinless, . .. he could not be saved without 
God, how do you not think that you and others... deceive your- 
selves ?°? — Dial. c. 102, p. 192. D. E. 
_ © Dial. c. 108, p. 198. D. 


42 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ Ix. 


at departure from life, beseech God, who is able to turn 
aside every wicked, ruthless angel, that he shall not seize 
our soul.?? 10 

The alleged fact, that God through Jesus delivered men 
from death, Justin does not attempt to prove. Perhaps 
he regarded it as implied in his Messiahship, and conse- 
quently in any evidence which established his Messiah- 
ship. Neither does he attempt in this connection to 
prove that Christianity was a protection after death” 


from evil spirits, though he argues that Judaism was 
not. 





19 Dial. c. 105, p. 200. B. 

1 Justin, in other passages, more than once assumes that in this life 
Christ’s name gave power over demons. ‘** We,’? says he, “call him 
Helper and Ransomer, at the power of whose name the demons tremble, 
and to-day, if exorcised in the name of Jesus Christ who was crucified 
under Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judm#a, they are rendered obedient ; 
so that from this it is manifest to all, that his Father gave him so much 
power that the demons are subject to his name and to the Economy ? of 
his suffering.?? — Dial. c. 30, p. 128. A. 

12 According to views which some of the Jews, no doubt, shared with 
the Christians, a soul’s evocation from the Underworld must be effected 
by the aid of ademon. Justin, proceeding on this supposition, continues 
his argument, if it can so be termed, from the point at which it is inter- 
rupted in the text. * And that souls continued to exist I showed you (in 
ce. 5, p. 107. D). And from the soul of Samuel being called up by the. 
ventriloquist at the request of Saul, it is manifest that all the souls of 
those who were thus [that is, without Christianity] Just and Prophets, 
fell under the dominion of such powers [i. e. evil spirits], . . . whence 
also God teaches us to strain every nerve that we may become righteous 
[Sicatovs, my own emendation of an unmeaning & ois] THROUGH HIS 
Son, and to petition at the close of life that our souls may not fall under 
the control of any such spirit.°? — Dial. c. 105, p. 200. B. C. 

An idea analogous to this of Justin, that insufficient righteousness left 
the soul subject after death to an evil spirit, appears in the Testaments 
of the Twelve Patriarchs, and, as I think, from a Jewish hand. 
‘* When a troubled soul departs, it is tormented by the evil spirit which 
it served [here] through its desires and wicked works.” —10 (Asher), 6. 
Grabe, Spicileg., Vol. 1, p. 228. The author of the Clementine Homilies 
philosophizes on this subjection to an evil spirit at death. Hom. 9, °. 


ee en 





ss ciel we 
al’) PY 
> i 


§ 1x.] CONTROVERSY WITH THE JEWS. : 43 


Irenzeus speaks of the Jews as ** not knowing nor wish- 


ing to understand that all the Prophets announced two 


comings of Christ; one, indeed, in which”? — after some 
other alleged fulfilments of prophecy — * he remembered 
again his dead who had already fallen asleep, and de- 
scended to them, that he might draw them out and might 
save them? 8 

Tertullian at one period in his life denied the liberation 
of the fathers,* though without questioning the fact that 
Christ had preached to them. At the date of his tract 
against the Jews he would seem to have admitted it. 
Alluding evidently to the two passages from Hosea quoted 
at the beginning of the preceding section, and blending 
them together, he asks, ** Why, after his resurrection from 
the dead, which occurred on the third day, did the 
heavens receive him? according to the prophecy of 
Isaiah, uttered as follows: * Before light ™ they shall rise, 
saying to me, Let us go and return to the Lord God, for he 
will take us out and will liberate us After two days, on 
the third day, which is his glorious resurrection, he be- 
took himself from earth into the heavens,”? 16 

Elsewhere,” however, he quotes the passage, mingling 


‘with it the words ‘cure? ‘heal? and * pity? from a pre- 


ceding verse, but omitting the word ‘liberate? and 
changing ** he will take us out” to “he has taken us out,? 
and explains it of the women, who came to the sepulchre 
expecting to be restored from their affliction by finding 
the Master risen. 

Cyprian among his heads, or positions, to be proved 





The Valentinians also held that ** whoever is sealed with the name of (or 
through, 6:4) the Father, Son, and Spirit is exempt from seizure (dvert- 
Anmros) by every other power.” — Doct. Orient. c. 80, p. 987. 

18 Cont. Heres. 4, 33, 1 (4, 56). 

14 See the second part of § XII. 


_ ¥% The Latin translation, whence Tertullian no doubt quotes, had ren- 


dered, literally, as it seems, an expression which meant to seek early, or 
hasten to. 
16 Adv. Judeos, c. 13, Opp. p. 227. A. 
1” Adv. Marcion. 4, 43, Opp. p. 574. A. 


44 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ x. 


against the Jews, states the two following, and subjoins, 
with other passages, those affixed here to each of them. 

XXIV. *¢THaT (CHRIST) SHOULD NOT BE CONQUERED 
BY DEATH NOR REMAIN IN THE UNDERWORLD.” ** In Psalm 
29 [80, 3], *O Lord, thou hast brought back my soul from 
the Underworld Also in Psalm 15 [16, 10], * Thou wilt 
not leave my soul in the Underworld, nor permit thy Holy 
One to see corruption? Also in Psalm 3 [8, 5],*Z slept and 
took sleep, and rose again because the Lord aided me.? ” 

XXV. “THAT HE SHOULD RISE AGAIN FROM THE UN- 
DERWORLD ON THE THIRD DAY. In Hosea [6, 2], * He 
will vivify us after two days; on the third day we shall 
rise again.’ ?? 18 : 





§ X. CHRIST NEEDED PRECURSORS BELOW. 


ACCORDING to Origen, those who had predicted and 
prepared the way for Christ on earth went to the Under- 
world that they might perform the same office for him 
there ; a solution of their descent thither which does not, 
however, appear to have been entertained by others. The 
following is extracted from his second Homily on the 


First Book of Kings, by which must be understood the 


Book of Samuel, then so designated : — 

*¢ Several things have been read. [Origen enumerates 
some.| Next to these was the celebrated account of the 
ventriloquist [i. e. witch of Endor] and Samuel. [1 Sam. 
28, 8—19.] . . . What shall we say? These things have 
been written. Are they true or are they untrne? To sa 
they are untrue leads to infidelity. It will fall on the 
heads of those who say it. But to affirm their truth oc- 
casions us inquiry and doubt. We know that some of 
our brethren deny the Scripture, and say, * I do not trust 
a ventriloquist.?, The ventriloquist professes to have seen 
Samuel. She lies. Samuel was not brought up... . 


a 





8 Testimon. adv. Judaos, 2, 24, 25, Opp. p- 47. 








§ x.] PRECURSORS NEEDED BELOW. 45 


Those who treat the account as false exclaim, ‘ Samuel in 


- the Underworld! Samuel brought up by a ventriloquist ! 


The best of the Prophets! Consecrated to God from his 
birth! . . . Samuel in the Underworld !— Samuel in the © 
Lower Regions! .. . He never received a heifer or an 
ox [as a bribe]. He judged and condemned The People 
and remained a poor man. He never desired to receive 
anything from such a people. Why should Samuel be 
seen in the Underworld ? Who followed him thither ?— 
Samuel in the Underworld! Why not Abraham and 
Isaac and Jacob there also? Samuel in the Underworld! 
Why not Moses, too, who is coupled with him in the 
statement [Jer.15, 1], Not even if Moses and Samuel should 
stand before me [petitioning for Israel], wowld J hearken to 
them? Samuel in the Underworld! Why not Jeremiah 
also 22291 

To the above Origen replies: ** He who does not wish 
to deny that Samuel was indeed the person raised, will 
say that Isaiah and Jeremiah and all the Prophets were 
in the Underworld... . . We say, . . . it is the narrating 
voice [i.e. the Holy Spirit. and not the witch] which says, 
* The woman saw Sanvuel.? » * 
_ Then, after a page or more of other argument, he con- 
tinues: *¢ Let an answer be given to my questions. Who 


is greater, Samuel or Jesus Christ? Who is greater, the 


Prophets, or Jesus Christ? Who is greater, Abraham or 
Jesus Christ??? And after assuming superiority as con- 
ceded to the latter, he goes on: ** Was not Christ in the. 
Underworld? Did not HE go there? Is not that true 
which is said in the Psalms, and which by the Apostles 
in their Acts is interpreted concerning the Saviour’s hav- 
ing descended to the Underworld? It is written [therein] 
that the passage in the Fifteenth Psalm [16, 10] relates to 


him, * Thow wilt not relinquish my soul to the Underworld, 


nor permit thy Holy One to see corruption.’ 
“Then if it should be answered, *[Ah, but] what was 
the purpose of Christ’s descent into the Underworld ? 





1 Origen, Opp. 2, pp. 490-492. 
. * Thid., p. 492. 


46 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ x. 


Was it that he might conquer? Or was he to be con- 
quered by Death [as Abraham and the Prophets were on 
your supposition ?? I would reply,] He did indeed de- 
scend to those regions, not as the slave of the powers 
there (rév éxe?), but to wrestle with them as their master 
(as deorrdrys raAaicwv),as we formerly stated when explain- 
ing the Twenty-first Psalm.3 ... The Saviour went down 
that he might save. [But] did he go down there foretold 
by the Prophets or not? Here [on earth] certainly he 
was foretold by the Prophets. .. . Even Moses proclaims 
that he was to dwell among men... . But if Moses 
utters predictions concerning him here, would you not 
have him descend thither also that he might foretell 
Christ’s advent? . . . Did not the other Prophets [do the 
same]? Did not Samuel? What absurdity is there in 
physicians descending to the sick? . . . They were many 
physicians ; but my Lord and Saviour is the Arch-physi- 
cian, for the inward longing which cannot be healed by 
others, he heals... . Do not fear. Do not be amazed. 
Jesus went to the Underworld, and the Prophets before 
him, and they foretold the coming of Christ... . Why 
should you fear to say that every place has need of 
Christ ? Does not he who needs Christ need the Prophets 
of Christ? For a man cannot have need of Christ, and 
no need of those who should prepare the way for his 
coming. And John, — than whom, according to the tes- 
timony of our Saviour himself, a greater had not been 
among those born of woman, — .. . do not fear to say 
that HE descended to the Underworld, the herald of the 
Lord. . . . Since (éé) all [men] descended into the Under- 
world prior to Christ’s time, the Prophets of Christ were 
his forerunners. Thus Samuel descended thither, not in- 
deed simply [i.e. in his character of a man], but as a 
saint. For wherever the Holy One (6 dywos) may be, there 
will be the saint (6 dytos). . . . I say it boldly, therefore ; 
the souls of those who slept needed the prophetic favor. 
. . . Before the coming of my Lord Jesus Christ, it was 
impossible for any one to pass by the tree of life; it was 





8 See, under § XV. 2, Origen’s exposition of this (the 22d) Psalm. 





ee a eek 





§x.] PRECURSORS NEEDED BELOW. 47 


impossible to pass by the appointed guards of the way to 
it. Who could travel it? Who could cause any one to 
pass the flaming sword?* Samuel could not pass the 
flaming sword, nor could Abraham. ... The Patriarchs, | 
therefore, and Prophets, and all, awaited the coming of 
my Lord Jesus Christ, that he should open the way... . 
There is, therefore, no difficulty in the passage, but all 
things are wonderfully written, and are comprehended by 
all to whom the Deity shall reveal them.??® 

Enoch and Elijah were regarded by the early Chris- 
tians as having been translated ALIVE into Paradise. 
With the exception of the foregoing passage, and the 
forgery entitled “* The Ascension of Isaiah” I know no 
document by a Catholic Christian which extends, or 
which mentions Catholic Christians that extended, such 
an exemption from the Underworld before Christ’s time 
to ANY THAT HAD DIED. 

Neither have I found in the second or third century 
any who shared Origen’s view that a preparation was 
requisite in the Underworld, as on earth, for Christ’s 
coming, unless it lurk under the following singular mis- 
application of a passage by Cyprian. Among his proofs 
6¢ THAT CHRIST SHOULD RISE AGAIN FROM THE UNDERWORLD 
ON THE THIRD DAY,’ he cites Exodus 19, 10, 11. ** The Lord 
said to Moses, Descend and testify to The People, and conse- 
crate them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their 
clothing and be ready against the day after to-morrow. 
For on the third day the Lord will descend upon Mount 
Sinai,?? ® 





* According to the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, God, 
in the renovation of the Jewish nation, would raise up a new priest. 
6 And in his priesthood, all sin will come to an end, . . . and he will 
open the gates of Paradise, and will still the sword that threatened Adam, 
and will give to the saints to eat of the tree of life.*? — 3 (Levi), 18. 
Grabe, Spicileg., Vol. 1, p. 172. This passage I suppose to be from a 
Jewish hand. — 

5 Origen, Opera, 2, pp. 494-498. 

6 Testimon. adv. Judeos, 2, 25. 


48 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XL 


§ XI. THE PREACHING. 


1. In the Apostolic Age. 


Two passages in the First Epistle of Peter have been 
regarded as evidence of an opinion having existed already 
in the Apostolic age, and in the mind of an Apostle, that 
the Saviour preached in the Underworld to its tenants. 
The passages are as follows : — 

1 Peter 3, 18-20. ‘* Christ once suffered for sins, — the 
just on account of the unjust, that he might lead us to God, 
being put to death as regarded the |mere] body, but rendered 
alive by the divine power, through (or by the support of) 
which he went and preached to the spirits in prison; who 
were disobedient formerly, when the long-suffering of God in 
the days of Noah waited until the ark was prepared.” 

Ibid. 4,5—7. (The Heathen) ** who shall render account 
to him that 18 READY to judge the living and the dead. For 
to this end the Gospel was preached to the dead also, that 
[though] they may be condemned by men as regards their 
life here (xara avOpurovs capkt), they may live by [the decision 
of | God as regards their spirits. The end of all things Is 
AT HAND,”? ete. 

That Peter believed his Master to have been in the 
Underworld would seem an unavoidable inference from 
his argument in Acts. This being the case, it is not un- 





1 The Peshito Syriac, the earliest version, probably, of the New Tes- 
tament, translates, according to Dr. Murdock’s rendering of the same, 
¢ He preached to those souls which were detained in Hades.”? 

2 66 Men of Israel, hear these words : Jesus of Nazareth, aman approved 
of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by 
him in your midst as you yourselves know, —him .. . you put to death. 
Whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death, since it was not 
possible that he should be held by them. For David says with reference to 
him, ... © On this account my heart rejoiced and my tongue exulted,... 
because thou wilt not leave my soul in the Underworld, nor permit thy 
Holy One to see corruption.? . . . Men and brethren ; let me speak boldly 
to you concerning the Patriarch David, that he died and was buried ; and 








§ xIr.] THE LIBERATION. 40 


natural that the question should have arisen in his own 
mind, or been suggested by an inquirer, ** What did the 
Master do there??? To such a query no answer appar- 
ently could have been devised more consonant than the 
above with the Master's life and spirit on earth. No 
' weariness, trial, or disappointment had withheld him from 
his ministry here. Is it singular that the Apostle, who 
had witnessed this, should suppose that even in the Un- 
derworld he had not remitted his efforts to reclaim the 
erring? Unless, indeed, in the latter of the two passages, 
the term ‘dead, as twice used, have different significa- 
tions, it would be difficult to interpret Peter’s language 
otherwise than as meaning a ministry to the departed. 


2. In the Second and Third Centuries. 


In the second and_thind centuries. every bran ch, and 

division o ristians, so far as their records enable us to \ , 
jadge, believed that Christ preached to the departed; and / 
‘ie belief dates ack four. earliest_reliable sources of / 


of these two-centuries. / 





-§XII. THE LIBERATION. 


1. In the Apostolic Age. 


THREE passages in Apostolic writings were supposed by 
the Fathers to teach a liberation from the Underworld 
_effected at Christ’s resurrection. One of these (1 Peter 4, 
5—7) has been already quoted in the preceding section. 
By recurring to it the reader will see, that, if it includes 





his sepulchre is among us to the present day. But being a Prophet, and 
knowing that God had sworn to him with an oath from the fruit of his loins to 
place [some one] on his throne [the words are here omitted which Griesbach 
rejects], he spoke by foreknowledge concerning the Messiah's resurrection, 
that he was not left in the Underworld, neither did his flesh see corrup- 
tion.”? — Acts 2, 22-31, 


50 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XII. 


under the term ‘Jive? the idea of exemption from death 
or the Underworld, that exemption must be connected, 
not with Christ’s resurrection, but with that resurrection 
and judgment of living AND DEAD” which “ 1s READY,” 
— with ** the end of all things” which “is at hand.” The 
preaching must be regarded as a preparation for a resur- 
rection yet to come, not for one which, when the Apostle 
wrote, was already past. 

The next is the passage Matthew 27, 52, 53: ** And many 
bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose, and coming 
out of their sepulchres after his resurrection entered the holy 
city, and appeared to many.” 

According to Origen, it was into the * Heavenly Jerusa- 
lem’?! that these saints entered, — into the * truly holy 
city, that Jerusalem over which Jesus had not wept.??? ° 

The natural meaning of the passage, in fact the only 


one which it will bear in its connection, is, that at the 


death, not at the resurrection, of Jesus, these sleeping 
saints arose, or awoke (jyép6), and that after his resur- 
rection the fact of their having come to life was visibly 
demonstrated to many who saw them in Jerusalem. The 
former of these ideas contradicted the belief of the Fathers, 
that these saints did not leave the Underworld until the 
Lord’s resurrection. The latter contradicted their opinion 
that he took them with him to Paradise. The passage, 
moreover, states that the BoprEs of these saints arose. 
This agreed neither with the view of those Catholics who 
regarded the reassumption of the body by the saints as 
yet to take place at a future resurrection, nor with that 
of the opposite party, who, as well as the Heretics, re- 
jected such a reassumption entirely. 

Whether, therefore, the passage originated from Mat- 
thew, or be, as some have supposed, a later interpolation, 
it can in neither case have been intended to teach a liber- 
ation from the Underworld analogous to that believed by 
the Fathers. Compare Jndirect Testimony, p. 88. 

The third passage which was regarded as alluding to 





1 Comment. in Rom. Lib. 5, 10, Opp. 4, p. 568. A. 
2 Comment. in Matt. Tom. 12, 43, Opp. 3, p. 566. A. 


_ ss 


Pu or = a eae) UP 
wee 


§ xIL] THE LIBERATION, 51 


this liberation is the following from Paul’s Epistle to the 
Ephesians, 4, 7-11: ** Zo each of us has been given favor 
according to the measure of Christ’s bounty. Wherefore [the 
Scripture] says (Ps. 68, 18), * ASCENDING ON HIGH, HE LED 
CAPTIVE THE CAPTIVES, AND CONFERRED GIFTS ON MEN,? | 
— Now this * HE ASCENDED,? what does it imply, if not that 
he also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He that 
descended is the same as he that ascended above all the 
heavens that he might fulfil ali things. — And he gave some 
to be apostles, and others public teachers, and others evan- 
gelists, and others pastors and private teachers,” ete. 

The idea of Christian gifts to which Paul was giving 
utterance, recalled to his mind a passage from the Old 
Testament touching gifts. Part of the passage suggested 
a thought extraneous to his subject, which he expresses 
parenthetically. He understands it as probably implying 
that the Messiah should descend into the Underworld. 
Perhaps it may be one of the passages used by Paul ac- 
cording to Acts 17, 3, in proof ** that the Messiah was to suffer 


and rise again from the dead.??® But of a liberation effected 


at the same time for others Paul mentions nothing. If 





8 6 They came to Thessalonica where was a synagogue of the Jews. And 


. according to Paul's custom, he entered among them and argued with them 


for three Sabbaths from the Scriptures, opening and alleging that it was 
requisite for the Messiah to suffer and arise from the dead, and that this 
Jesus whom I announce to you is the Messiah.?? — Acts 17,1-3. The 
connection gives us no light as to what passages Paul used. But else- 
where we find him using the argument already quoted from, and with an 
additional link or two in the chain of connection. ‘** We,” says Paul, 
6 announce to you the glad tidings that the promise which was made TO THE 
FATHERS, God has fulfilled TO US THEIR CHILDREN by raising up Jesus. 
... And as to his raising him from the dead, no more to return to cor- 
ruption, he has thus spoken : * I will give To vou the mercies surely prom- 
ised TO Davip.? On which account (the Scripture] elsewhere says, * Thou 
wilt not give thy Holy One to see corruption.? David indeed... fell 
asleep and was placed with his fathers, and saw corruption. But he whom 
God raised up did not see corruption.?? — Acts 13, 32-37. An interpre- 
tation of the passage in Ephesians which does not treat it as referring to 
Christ will be found in the Christian Examiner (Boston), Vol. V. pp. 
65-67. Neither interpretation is without difficulties. 


52 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ X11. 


there is any faith to be placed in the connection as a 
guide to interpretation, he was not thinking of such a 
thing. That part of the quotation which was regarded by 
the Fathers as referring to the rescued captives, he neither 
uses nor notices. He seems to have cited it because he 
could not make the desired quotation without it. 

Of a liberation, therefore, that accompanied the Sa- 
viour’s resurrection, no mention is left to us out of the 
Apostolic age. If the idea already existed, it is not al- 
luded to. 


2. In the Second and Third Centuries. 


In the second and third centuries, the belief of the 
above-mentioned liberation appears to have been almost 
universal. Hermas may have substituted for it a lbera- 
tion after baptism by the Apostles, or may have held it 
inconsistently with the latter opinion.* Tertullian was the 
only one of whom it can be affirmed that at one time he 
denied it. According to his tract, De Anima, the sword, 

« 





* See § XIII. 

5 Under § XXII. 4, will be given two passages concerning the state of 
departed souls since Christ, one from Justin and the other from Irenzeus, 
to the purport that **souls abide somewhere” or ** go to an invisible 
place”? until the resurrection. These have been erroneously understood 
as implying a belief by their writers, that no change had been effected in 
the state of such as departed before Christ. See Pearson on the Creed, 
note t on p. 863; and King, in his History of the Apostles’ Creed, pp. 
207, 208. | 

The opposition of Protestants to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory 
and indulgences led them to lay stress on the position, that no change of 
state was possible after death. Protestant advocates of Church authority 
were of course indisposed to admit either that such a change had taken 
place in the condition of the Patriarchs, or that the early Church believed 
it to have taken place. Pearson (in his work on the Creed, pp. 370, 371) 
ventures the assertion, that ** the most ancient of all the Fathers whose 
writings are extant, were so far from believing that the end of Christ’s 
descent into hell [i. e. the Underworld] was to translate the saints of 
old into heaven, that they thought them not to be in heaven yet, 
NOR EVER TO BE REMOVED FROM THAT PLACE IN WHICH THEY WERE 


—ee ae a re 





Sse a 


§ x11.] THE LIBERATION. 53 


gate-keeper of Paradise, ** yields to none save those who 
have DEPARTED IN CHRIST, NOT IN ADAM, . . . not in gen- 
tle fevers and in bed, but AMIDST TORTURES.”?® Christian 
martyrs alone were as yet in Paradise. To this peculiar- 
ity he was led, however, by pushing to their consequences 
arguments which the Liberalist Catholics did not use and 
which the Orthodox did not venture to carry out;7 and 
which, moreover, he himself at other times either cannot 
have used, or cannot have pushed to the same extent, 
since, beside the quotation in § IX. he tells us in an- 
other work, ** You see in what manner also the Divine 
Wisdom put to death its own first-born and only-begot- 
ten Son, who, to be sure, was to gain the victory, and 
also to bring back others to life.”?® And elsewhere he 
says: ** He [Christ] led captive. . . . Death or hwmanam 
servitutem enslaved humanity.”?® And again: *¢ Adam 
restored to his Paradise by hearty confession [of Christ] is 
not silent.?? 1° Even the * Ascension of Isaiah,?— which 
represents that prophet as having seen in the seventh 
heaven during his lifetime “all the saints from Adam, 
holy Abel and every other saint,’ 1—-states that ** on the 





BEFORE CHRIst’s DEATH, until the resurrection”? ; and, in proof of this 


‘broad assertion, refers to but three Fathers prior to the fourth century, 


namely, Justin, Ireneeus, and Tertullian. It escaped his attention, that 
on his own pages he had placed the statement of Irenzeus, that * the 
Lord remembered his dead saints . . . and descended to draw them 
out (extrahere cos) and to save them.”? See his note * on p. 366. 
Marcion would indeed have lost his labor in proving that Abraham and 
the saints were left in the Underworld, if none of his cotemporaries be- 
lieved that they had been taken out. Ifthe reader wishes to investigate this 
point, let him examine the whole of § II. ; and under § III. the extracts 
from Ignatius, Clement, Origen, and from the opponents of Tertullian ; 
under § VI., from Barnabas ; under § VII., from Arnobius ; under § VIII., 
from Ireneeus ; under § IX., from Justin ; under § XIII., from Hermas ; 
and under § III., and in the Appendix, Note E, from Cyprian ; besides 
other passages which he will find scattered through this work. 

6 De Anima, c. 55, p. 353. D. 

7 See § XXII. 4, 5, and compare § XXI. 6. 

® Contra Gnosticos Scorpiace, c. 7, Opp. p. 623. D. 

9 Adv. Marc. 5, 8, Opp. p. 690. D.: 
-? De Peenitentia, c. 12, Opp. p. 148. D. ll Ch. 9, 7, 8. 


| 


7 
F 
j 


ee 


54 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ X11. 


third day (Christ) shall rise again, . . . and many also of 
the saints shall ascend with him.” # 

The belief of the Liberation was so firmly rooted and 
general at the date of our earliest records in the second 
century, as to evince that it had grown up in that his- 
torical chasm which separates the Apostolic and Ecclesias- 
tic ages, if indeed it may not have originated in the age 
of the Apostles themselves. 3 

How did this belief arise? Probabilities alone can_be 
suggested in answer. They are.the-following.._.Chris- 
tianity was preached as_a life-giving religion at_a_time 
when one prominent meaning of life was exemption from 
the Underworld.* The belief of such an exemption was 
not only generally maintained in the second and third 
centuries as the prerogative of Christians, but the Libera- 
tion itself was in a variety of ways DIRECTLY connected 
with the acceptance of Christianity.* When a belief 
had already arisen, therefore, in a mission of the Saviour 
below, the idea that those who accepted his teachings 
there must also be entitled to this exemption, was a not 
unnatural consequent. Loose _methods.of-interpretation 
rendered it easy to infer, from passages of the Old and 
New Testaments already adduced, that such a Liberation 
had actually accompanied the Saviour’s resurrection, and 
there was the greater inducement to this use of the Old. 
Testament, as the Christians thereby found their store- 
\house of arguments against the Jews much better filled, 
Vere Scripture contained nothing applicable to a 
Preaching’ in the Underworld, but much which could 


be misinterpreted of a Liberation from it. Either wo 


have implied, according to their method of reasoning, 
that the Messiah was to die a 





2 Ch. 9, 16, 17. 

18 See Appendix, Note B. 

14 See the views of Marcion in § II. ; the arguments of Clement of 
Alexandria and the citation from Peter by Cyprian in the second division 
of § III. ; the statements of Hermas in § XIII. ; and compare Note B in 
the Appendix. Clement plainly implies, what Marcion, Cyprian, and 
Hermas affirm, that liberation from the Underworld depended on the 


oe yt 


§ x11.] THE BAPTISM. 55 


§ XIII. THE BAPTISM. 


ae Christian Fathers treated baptism _as_a prerequi- “ 
site for the Kingdom of Heaven,! and marvellously mag- 
nified its virtues. Some of their hearers, however, seem 
to have thought that a common argument, which was 
universally regarded as sound when directed against Jew- 
ish rites, could not become unsound by being applied to 
Christian ones. ** Here,” says Tertullian, ** those wretches 
raise questions. They say, * Baptism therefore is un- 
necessary, since faith is sufficient; for Abraham pleased 
God without any water-sacrament by faith alone.” ? 
There was certainly a_difficulty_in_maintaining baptism 
as a prerequisite for salvation, and at the same time ad- 
mitting, not only that the Patriarchs had been acceptable 
to God without it, but that they had gone to heaven with- / 
_out it. The devout Hermas, author of the Shepherd, 
sought a solution of this among the difficulties which he 
considered. His efforts are interesting, as honest, though 
not always successful, attempts to meet questions which 
had troubled his own mind, and his manner forms an 
agreeable contrast to some of the harsher controversial 
spirit of the age. 

Hermas undertook to have the Old Testament saints 
baptized below. But in the Gospel of John it is stated 
(4, 3), ** Jesus baptized not, but his disciples”; a fact not 
overlooked in the second century. Opponents of Tertu- 
lian said, **The Lord came, and HE did not baptize’? ;8 
and Hermas seems to have felt it, for he commits the 
baptism to the Apostles and their companions. The pas- 
sage to be quoted is from an allegorical description of 




















becoming Christ’s disciples, to which, however, the last-mentioned writer 
deemed baptism an essential. 
1 Tt is permitted no one to obtain salvation without baptism.?? — 


Tertullian de Baptismo, c. 12, Opp. p. 261. A. 


2 De Baptismo, c. 13, Opp. p. 262. A. 
_* De Baptismo, c. 11, Opp. p. 260. C. 


56 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XII. 


the erection of a tower which represents the Christian 
Church. 

SIMILITUDE 9, c. 3, ** Then those six (c. 12, messengers 
of the Saviour) commanded that stones should be 
brought from a certain deep place [the Underworld] 
and prepared for the erection of the tower (c. 13, This 
tower is the Church), and ten white stones squared and 
uncut were raised up.” c.4, ** After those ten stones, 
twenty-five others were raised from the deep place. . .. 
After these, thirty-five others were raised; .. .. after 
these, forty stones ascended.” c. 15, **The ten stones 
which were placed in the foundation are the first age, 
and the following twenty-five the second age of Just 
Men. But those thirty are the Prophets and Ministers 
of the Lord [under the old dispensation]. But the 
forty are the Apostles and Teachers of the preaching of 
the Son of God.” cc. 16, ** Why, I said, did these stones 
ascend from the deep place, and why were they placed 
in the tower, seeing that they already had just spirits ? 
It is necessary, [the angel] answered, that they should 
ascend through water, in order to be at rest. For they 
could not otherwise enter the kingdom of God, than 
by laying aside the mortality® of their former life. 
They, therefore, though departed, were impressed with 
the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the king- 
dom of God. For before a man receives the name of 
the Son of God, he is destined to Death; but when he 
receives that seal [baptism], he is liberated from Death 
and delivered over to Life. To them, therefore, that 
seal was preached, and they used it that they might 
enter the kingdom of God. ... These Apostles and 
Teachers who preached [while on earth] the name of the 
Son of God, after they died in his faith and the power 
which he granted them, preached to those who had pre- 





* The first, or uncircumcised age, from Adam to Abraham ; the second, 
or circumcised, from Abraham to Moses, a division based on the intro- 
duction of circumcision and the Mosaic Law. Compare Justin’s Dialogue, 
cc. 23, 27, 43, 92. 

5 See Appendix, Note B. 





— 


§ xu1.] THE BAPTISM. 57 


viously passed away, and themselves gave them the seal 
of their preaching. . . . Through these, therefore, they 
[the previously dead] were made alive and acquainted ~ 
with the name of the Son of God; and on this account 
ascended with them, and were fitted into the structure 
of the tower, and were built in without cutting ;° for 
they died in justice and in great chastity, only they had 
not this seal.” 

To an attentive mind it will already have occurred that 
the foregoing is inconsistent with the idea that the Libera- 


tion took place at Christ’s resurrection. Hermas may, 


like Clement of Alexandria, have failed to notice the in- 
consistency, or may have intended that the Saviour’s 
preaching below — which, however, he does not mention 
— was followed by a mission of the Apostles, until which 
time the Liberation of these departed saints was deferred, 
The former supposition is perhaps the more probable. A 
pious disposition not unfrequently becomes inconsistent 
in endeavoring to maintain usages to which it is attached. 
When disconnected from boldness,— as was the case in 
Hermas, — such a disposition is not likely to deny, point- 
blank, favorite dogmas of its co-religionists. And in the 
present instance a conscious postponement of the Libera- 
tion would have required a denial of much theology that 
had gathered around it. | 

Ireneus may allude to, though he does not plainly 
mention, a baptism by the Saviour below. He says that 
through Christ ‘all who had been disciples since the be- 
ginning [of the human race], being purified and washed, 
come into the life of God” ;7 that to the departed Just 
Men, Prophets, and Patriarchs the Lord * remitted their 
sins IN LIKE MANNER AS to us,? ®— phraseology which to 
a Christian of his day would have suggested a baptism of 
the departed, though the difficulties in the way of such a 
doctrine may have prevented Irenzus from plainly affirm- 
ing it. 





6 Bad stones had their defects cut away. 
7 Treneeus, 4, 22, 1 (4, 39). 
_ 8 Tdem, 4, 27, 2 (4, 45). 


58 UNDERWORLD MISSION. {§ Xv. 


Clement of Alexandria, notwithstanding -his quotation 
from the above passage of Hermas, does not in his own 
words mention a baptism of the departed ; nor, unless 
some passage has escaped my attention, is it alluded to 
by the other Fathers of the second or third century. The 
New Testament afforded no warrant for a baptism by the 
Saviour, and the Apostles could not baptize in the Under- 
world those whom their Master had already taken out 
of it. 





ad 
§ XIV. SATAN, OR DEATH, LORD OF THE UNDER- 
WORLD. 


THE names! by which the Jews designated the Prince 
of evil spirits may not always have been synonymes for 
each other, but. Samael and Satan seem to have been 
identical. In the Jewish theology as contained in the 
Talmud, Samael-or-Satan—appears in a twofold-eapacity, 
as the Angel of Death? and as the ruler of_the-Gentile 
world, or of all creatures except the Jews.2—In the the- 





1 Lightfoot, in his Horwa Hebraice, on Luke 11, 15, says that he finds 
three evil spirits who are called by the Jews * Prince of the Demons.’ 
1. *The Angel of Death.? 2. *Asmodeus.’ . 3. *Beelzebub.? In the 
Book of Enoch, Azazyel is the leader of the fallen angels. In the As- 
cension of Isaiah the term Berial (a different form probably of Beliar 
or Belial) designates (ch. 2, 4) *the Angel of Iniquity,’ or (ch. 4, 2) *the 
Prince of this World,’ and is perhaps used interchangeably for Samael. 

2 Wetstein, in his note on Hebrews 2, 14, quotes the following: 
*¢ Targum Jonathan, Gen. 3, 6, ‘And the woman saw Samael, the Angel 
of Death.? Bava Bathra, f. 16.1, Rabbi Lakisch said, *He is Satan; 
he is the Angel of Death.? Devarim R. ult., Samael was the cause (?) 
of death to the whole world.” 

In the Koran the Angel of Death is Azrael or Azrail, apparently dis- 
tinct from Satan. 

3 Wetstein quotes, in his note on John 12, 31, the following : ** Bemid- 
mar R. 16, f. 220-223. When the Law was given, God summoned 
the Angel of Death, and said to him, The whole world is in your power 





4a 


See se 


§ xiv.]—- SATAN- LORD OF THE UNDERWORLD. 59 


‘ology of the Fathers he holds two positions analogous to 
the foregoing, but so developed as to create some discord- 


ance between them. He is the God of this World (1. e. 
of the unbelieving World) ;* the Prince of the Powers of — 


the Air (i. e. of the Demon-deities who ruled the Gentiles), 
dwelling in the firmament.® He is also the Lord of the 





except this nation which I have chosen for myself. ...The Angel of 


Death said in the presence of God, I am created to no purpose in the 
world. God answered, I created thee to watch over the nations of the 


world. . . . When the children of Israel stood at Mount Sion [Sinai ?] 
and said, Exod. 24,7 [All that the Lord hath said will we do and be 
obedient}, God called. the Angel of Death and said to him, Although 


I have appointed you World-Ruler over creatures —? Wetstein 


omits the rest of the quotation, the foregoing part of which would lead 
us to expect in conclusion a special exception as above in favor of the 


Jews. See also Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., on John 12, 31. 


. * Origen says : ** He is called the Prince of the World, not because he 
created it, but because there are many sinners in this world. Inasmuch, 
therefore, as he is the Prince of Sin, he is also called the Prince of the 
World ; Prince, that is, of those who have not yet left the world and 
turned to the Father.” — In Numeros Hom. 12, 4, Opp. 2, p. 315. D. 


Tertullian tells Marcion : ** Therefore, if (Paul) says that the Gentiles 


were without God, and their God is the Devil, not the Creator, it is 
apparent that that * Lord of this Age? (2 Cor. 4, 4) is to be understood 
whom the Gentiles received as God ; not the Creator, of whom they are 
ignorant.?? — Adv. Marcion, 5, 11, Opp. p. 598. C. D. 

_ © “Tt will be easy,” says Tertullian, to interpret the Lord of this 
Age as the Devil, who said, according to the Prophet (Is. 14, 14), § Z wii7 
be like the Most High ; I will place my throne among the clouds |??? — 
Adv. Marcion, 5, 11, Opp. p. 598. B. And again: * Who ishe? [The 
Prince of the Powers of the Air, Eph. 2, 2,] without doubt, he who 
raises up children of unbelief in opposition to the Creator, having pos- 
sessed himself of this air, as the Prophet [I follow the text of the 


Tauchnitz edit.] relates that he said, *Z will place my throne among the 


clouds, I will be like the Most High.? This is the Devil, whom elsewhere 
too —if indeed persons wish so to understand the Apostle —we recog- 
nize as the God of this Age.?? — Adv. Marcion, 5,17, Opp. p. 608. C. 
The Ascension of Isaiah states : ** We then ascended into the fir- 
mament, I and he (the angel), where I beheld Samael and his powers. 
Great slaughter was perpetrated by him, and diabolical deeds.?? — Ch. 


7, 9 And again: **He (Christ) descended into the firmament where 


60 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ xv. 


Underworld, and in this capacity is called * Death. ® 
This is the character in which we are here to consider 
him. Any examination into his character as Prince of 
Evil would lead us too far from our subject. 

A passage in the Writer to the Hebrews has been re- 
garded as the earliest allusion from a Christian pen to 
Satan as Ruler of the Dead. He is there spoken of as 
having *the dominion of death. The Greek term for 
dominion, kpdros, has sometimes the force of * regal au- 
thority,’ but the connection of the passage does not fore- 
close difference of opinion as to its interpretation. 

Some of the Fathers leave us in no doubt that at least 
one — and a very prominent — sense in which they un- 
derstood Satan to have the dominion of death was this : 
they supposed him to have detained in his gloomy regions 
below, and to have ruled over, the departed members of 
the human family, until Christ descended for their libera- 
tion. By them mankind, except Christians, were gen- 
erally — though not without doubt on the part of some 
— regarded as still becoming his prey at death. 

But how had Satan attained this authority? There 
are different answers to this question by some of the 
Fathers, while others give us no answer, and do not even 
intimate that the question had occurred to them. 

Ireneus says: The Law “burdened sinful man by 
showing him to be THE DEBTOR OF [or due to] Death,?? 





the Prince of this World dwells; ... he descended . . . to the angels 


of the air; . . . they were plundering and assaulting one another.?? — 
Ch. 10, 29-31. 


§ Origen tells us: ** Death in the Scriptures . . . signifies many 
things. For the separation of the body from the soul is named death; 
but this can neither be regarded as an evil nor a good... . And, 
again, that separation of the soul from God which sin occasions is called 
death. This is obviously an- evil, and is also called the wages of sin... . 
And again, THE Devit himself, the author of this death, Is CALLED 
DeatTH, and he it is who is called the last enemy of Christ that shall be 
destroyed. But the region of THE UNDERWORLD, WHERE [before Christ] 
SOULS WERE DETAINED BY DEATH [the Devil], it also Is CALLED DEATH.”? 
— In Rom. Lib. 6, 6, Opp. 4, p. 576. B. C. 

7 For the convenience of the reader I subjoin the connection of the 


ie iia al 


—~—a ee a  ? 


ee ee ae 
ee ———— 
‘ 


- 


 § xIv.] SATAN LORD OF THE UNDERWORLD. 61 


and thinks, as will appear in a citation under § XVI., 
that, in order to man’s release, his enemy needed to 
be JUSTLY conquered ; expressions which would seem 
to imply a belief that this enemy had a right to hold 
mar. Yet the foregoing quotation is introduced by say- 
ing, that “ when the Law came, which was given through 
Moses, and testified of Sin that he is a sinner, it took 
away his regal dignity, disclosing him to be a ROBBER 
and HOMICIDE, instead of a king”? And a citation from 
the same writer, which will be found in § XVIII. 2, 
treats the Apostate Angel as having ‘seized rapaciously 
what was not his.’ | 

-Irenzeus may have made a not very well-defined dis- 
tinction in his own mind between Satan as the personifi- 
cation of Sin, and the same being as the personifica- 
tion of Death, supposing him, in his former capacity, to 
be unjustifiable for misleading man, but in his latter to 
be fairly entitled to him after he was misled. It is more 
probable, however, that his ideas were simply confused 
and inconsistent. 

The author of the Clementine Homilies says that * to 
the soul [which calumniates God] no rest (or place of 
rest) will be given in the Underworld, by him who is 
APPOINTED as ruler there.””® This writer was too singular 
to represent any one’s views but his own; nor is it likely 


‘ that the fair inferences from his position would have been 


accepted by himself. 





passage: * Therefore they (the Gnostics) who say that he (Christ) was 
manifested in appearance, but not born in the flesh, nor truly made man, 
are as yet under the former condemnation, and advocate the cause of Sin; 
since, according to them, that Death has not been conquered, which 
*reigned from Adam to Moses, even over such as had not sinned after the 
similitude of Adam’s transgression.? But when the Law came, which 
was given through Moses, and testified of Sin that he is a sinner, it took 
away his regal dignity (regnwm, a translation probably of Baccdelar), 
disclosing him to be a robber and homicide, instead of a king. But it 
burdened sinful man, by showing him to be the debtor of (or due to) 
Death, rewm Mortis [a translation probably of égecAér nv Oavdrov] ostendens 
eum.”? —Irenzeus, 3, 18, 7 (3, 20). 

_§ Hom. 11, 10, Cotelerius, Pat. Apost., Vol. 1, p. 701. 


62 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XIV; 


According to Origen, it was simply the lot of human 
nature that it descended to the Underworld, and thereby 
became a prey to Satan. ‘“¢If that Death,” he tells us, 
66 which detained souls in the Underworld, he said, as it is 
in some copies, to § have reigned even over those who did NOT 
sin after the manner of Adam's transgression’ we under- 
stand that some of the saints had fallen under that Death, 
if not by the law of sinning, yet certainly by that of dy- 
ing ; and that therefore Christ descended into the Under- 
world, not only that he himself should not be held by 
Death,® but that he might draw out those who were kept 
there, as we have said, not so much by the crime of 
transgression as by the condition affixed to dying; .. 
he destroyed the kingdoms of death, out of which it is 
written that he liberated the captives. But as to the 
enemy and tyrant whose kingdoms he ruined, hear in 
what manner the Apostle says that HE shall be destroyed. 
(1 Cor. 15, 26.) * The last enemy, he says, * shall be de- 
stroyed, [namely] Death.? » 1° 

The Dispute of Archelaus with Manes takes a different 
view from either of the above. Its author had perhaps 
felt the force of the Manichzean objection, that the wor- 
shippers of the Jewish Deity went to the regions of 
darkness. Two passages are discussed in the following 
extract, the statement of Paul (Rom. 5, 14), ** Death 
reigned from Adam to Moses, even over such as did not sin 
in the same manner as Adam,” and the term (2 Cor. 3, 7), 
© Ministration of Death? which he applies to the com- 
munication of the Law. Archelaus, who appears as the 
Catholic disputant, explains Paul’s words as follows: 
*¢ Since the memory of the wicked did not faithfully re- 


tain the natural law written on their hearts, . . . and by 
transgression of its commandments Death obtained a 
kingdom among men, ... Death exulted and reigned 


with full power until Moses, even over those who had 
not sinned in the manner mentioned; over sinners as 
properly his and subject to him, . . . but over the right- 





9 See the third division of § XVIII. 
10 Comment. in Rom., Lib. 5, 1, Opp. 4, p. 551. B. C. 





eee CC Ur CU 


§ xIv.] SATAN- LORD OF THE UNDERWORLD. 63 


eous, because, instead of obeying, they resisted him. . . . 
When Moses came and gave the Law . . . he delivered 
to Death only those who should transgress it. Death 
Was PROHIBITED from reigning over all. For by the direc- 
tion of the Law to him, * You shall not touch these 
who keep my precepts?" he reigned over sinners 
alone. . . . But even after this, Death wished to rescind 
the contract prescribed [a euphemism apparently for * the 
conditions imposed’] by Moses, and to reign anew over 
the just ; and he rushed upon the Prophets, killing and 
stoning those who were sent by God, even to [the time 
of] Zacharias. But my Lord Jesus, who watched over 
the justice [just administration ?] of the Law of Moses, 
being indignant at Death for his transgression of the 
agreement, . . . saw fit to come in.a human body, that 
he might * vinpIcaTE, * not himself, but Moses and those 
who in succession after him had been oppressed by the 
violence of Death. . . . The Law is called ¢ The Ministra- 
tion of Death, because it delivered sinful transgressors to 
Death. But it protected its observers from Death, and 
placed them in glory through the support and aid of our 
Lord Jesus Christ.” ® 

Marcion believed the existence of Satan, whom, says 
Tertullian, ** both we and Marcion recognize as an [evil] 
angel.? 4 He was brought into being by the Creator, 
for, according to Tertullian, Marcion regarded the Crea- 





11 This is perhaps an erroneous quotation of Ps. 105, 15, ** Zouch not 
mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm’ ; or the writer may have 
confounded with the Pentateuch some of the traditional comments upon 
it, such as are quoted from Wetstein in a note near the beginning of this 
section. 

12 Compare the note on this word as quoted from Arnobius in the third 
division of § XXII. 

3% Archelai et Manetis Disputat., ch. 30. Routh, Relig. Sac., Vol. 5, 
pp. 112-115. 

14 Ady. Marcion, 5, 12, Opp. p. 600. B. Mr. Norton seems to have 
overlooked this passage. See his Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. 3, 
p- 61 (2d edit. p. 64). Compare with it an extract from Tertullian in a 
note under § XXI. 2. 


64 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ xv. 


tor as ‘the author of the Devil? Whether he iden- 
tified him with the personification of Death, does not 
appear. 3 

The Valentinians believed in a Devil, “* whom,” says 
Trenzus, ** they also call Cosmocrator,? 1 that is, World- 
ruler. He dwelt in this world,” possibly in the firmament 
which formed its upper limit. They personified Death,¥ 
and no doubt identified him with the Cosmoerator, the 
ruler of this Underworld, as they regarded it,—this region 
of darkness, where, as will appear in the sixth division of 
§ XXIL., they regarded the earthly-minded after death as 
remaining until destroyed by the conflagration. 





§ XV. FOREBODINGS OF CONFLICT. 


1. The Agony in the Garden. 


Wouw.p the Lord of the Underworld surrender his pris- 
oners without a battle? This was hardly to be expected. 
In the Scripture interpretations of Origen we find the 
Saviour. represented towards the close of his life as look- 
ing with anxiety to the conflict that should follow. On 
the words of Matthew (26, 37), ** Taking Peter and the two 
sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and heavy,? Origen | 
remarks, *¢ For perhaps he saw, standing by, the * kings ; 
of the earth and princes [that is, as elsewhere explained, | 
the demon-powers], congregated together against the Lord, 
and against his Christ. . . . Therefore he began to be sad 
as concerned his human nature, which was subject to such 





15 Adv. Mare. 2, 10, Opp. p. 461. B. 

16 Cont. Heres. 1,5, 4(1,1). The term is borrowed from Paul’s ex- 
pression, ** World-rulers of this darkness,?? Eph. 6, 12. 

W Tbid. 

8 Doctrina Orient., c. 61, Clem. Alex. Opp. p. 984. 

1 Comment. in Joan., Tom. 32, 15, Opp. 4, p. 448. A.; and in Genes. 
Hom. 9, 3, Opp. 2, p. 86. A. 





§ xv.] FOREBODINGS OF CONFLICT. 65 


sufferings, but not as to his divine nature, which was far 
removed from suffering of this kind. . . . Seeing there- 
fore that contest impending which he was not to maintain 
against flesh and blood, but against so many kings of the | 
earth, who were standing by, and princes congregated 
against himself, as never previously [had collected], he 
BEGAN to fear or to be sad, suffering no further sadness 
or fear, however, than the beginning of it. But he did 
BEGIN to fear and be sad, at which time he said (Matt. 
26, 38), * My soul is sad even to death,?? 2 


2. The Twenty-second Psalm. 


The contents of this Psalm would render it probable 
that it may have been used among the Jews as an expres- 
sion both of suffering and of confidence in God. Those 
who appreciate the power of a familiar devotional strain 
to support the soul under suffering, will hardly need fur- 
ther explanation of the fact that its first line was uttered 
by the Saviour on the cross. The Fathers put into the 
Saviour’s mouth the whole Psalm, and did not always 
select as the subject of their comments those portions 
which would sound most gratefully to the ear of modern 
devotion. The * Roaring Lion, by allusion to 1 Peter — 
5, 8, was commonly interpreted to mean Satan or Death. 
Origen understands the * Gaping Bulls? which surrounded 
the speaker to mean Demons, and adds, ** It is probable 
that br esus) saw around him the [infernal] powers, which 
wished to seize upon his soul and force it down to the 
regions of gloom.””? On the eleventh verse, * Be not far 
Jrom me, for trouble is near, for there 1s no one to help,? 
he remarks: * Perhaps the words ‘ trouble is near? were 
uttered while yet on the cross with reference to his exi- 
gence in the Underworld from its rulers. He speaks this 
as if destitute of assistance from the angels; for not one 
of them dared to descend thither with him.” ® 

Tertullian tells the Jews, “* If you still desire teachings 
[of the Old Testament] concerning the Lord’s cross, the 





2 Origen Ser. Com. in Matt., No. 90, Opp. 3, p. 902. 
- 8 Comment. in Ps, 21 (22), Opp. 2, p. 621. 


s 


‘ ‘ x 
66 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XVL 


twenty-first [twenty-second] Psalm can give you enough 
of it, containing, as it does, the whole history of Christ’s 
suffering, who was thenceforward to sing his own glory. 
. . . When he implored the aid of his Father, * Save 
me, he says, * from the mouth of the Lion? —that is, of 
Death.” 4 

Six, interpretation of the same passage will be found 
in § [X. 





§ XVI. THE VICTORY.—THE UNDERWORLD RIVEN. 


Our Saviour, in answer to the Jews who charged him 
with casting out demons by the aid of Beelzebub, called 
attention to their inconsistency by the remark that Beel- 
zebub could not be expected to lay waste his own posses- 
sions, and that a stronger alone than Beelzebub could 
do it. 

Though the reply of Jesus was less frequently misin- 
terpreted than its appositeness to our subject might have 
induced us to anticipate, yet it was misinterpreted, and 
it will, with its exposition by Origen, form no inappropri- 
ate introduction to the present section. %* How,?? says 
the Saviour, ** can any one enter the strong one’s house and 
plunder his goods, except he first bind the strong one, and 
then he will plunder his house? Or, according to the 
wording of Luke’s Gospel, * When a strong one in armor 
guards his threshold, his property is undisturbed. But 
when a stronger than he, coming upon him, shall conquer 
him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted, and 
divides his spoils.?? ? 

Origen, alluding to and quoting the above, says: * Christ 
voluntarily * emptied himself and took the form of @ ser- 
vant? and suffered the rule of the tyrant, ‘being made 
obedient unto Death?*® by which death he destroyed * him 





* Adv. Judeos, c. 10, Opp. p. 222. A. 1 Matt. 12, 29. 

2 Luke 11, 21, 22. 

8 Philip. 2, 7,8 Paul’s words are ** obedient even to [the suffering of] 
death.” 








§ XVL] THE VICTORY. 


who had the dominion of death, that is, the Devil, * that he 
might liberate those who were held by Death. For hav- 
ing bound the strong one, he went into his house, into the 
house of Death, into the Underworld, and thence plun- 
dered his goods, that is, carried off the souls which he 
held, . . . and thence ‘ascending on high, led captive the 
captives,? 9 6 

It is one instance of the inconsistencies of the Fathers, 
that in the foregoing Christ is represented as first binding 
his enemy, and then entering his house, whereas other 
passages commonly mention a fearful struggle as occur- 
ring in the Underworld. | 

The earliest Christian passage in which the germ of 
the above opinion might be sought is from the Writer to 
the Hebrews, who says that Christ partook of flesh and 
blood, ** that through death he might destroy him who has 
the dominion of death, that is, the Devil.®® But the fur- 
ther object there stated is not the delivery of the dead 
from his power, but of the living from the fear of death, 
—that he “might deliver as many as through fear of 
death were, during their whole lives, subject to slavery.?* 
The passage, moreover, does not explain the connection 
between Christ’s death and the Devil’s destruction. 
Justin Martyr speaks of Christ as having, * for the sal- 
vation of such as believed on him, endured humiliation 
and suffering, that by dying and rising again he might 
conquer Death,??® but does not explain the nature of the 
victory. The reader may examine a further extract from 
him in the next section, to see whether it throws light on 

the subject. 
___ Treneeus is the earliest writer who DILATES on the’Sav- 
iour’s victory. Before quoting him, it will be necessary, 
however, to explain one of his peculiarities. In reply 
to the Gnostics who maintained that there was no con- 





* Heb. 2, 14. 

5 Ps. 68, 18, Origen, Comment. in Rom., Lib, 6, 10, Opp. 4, pp. 567. 
D., 568. A. 

Ae Se iy Ya 7 Ch. 2, 15. 

® Apol. 1, c. 63, p. 82. A. 


68 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XVI. 


nection, or but an indirect one, between the Old and 
New Dispensations, Irenzeus endeavored to show that the 
events of the Old Dispensation were antithetically re- 
peated in the New,° leaving it to be inferred that this 
repetition implied a direct ‘connection between the two. 
Keeping his mind intently fixed on the discovery of these 
antitheses, and forgetting consistency or coherence in his 
search for them, he blends Christ’s moral victory, won by 
resisting Satan’s temptations, and, if 1 may so term it, 
his physical victory in the Underworld, in such inextri- 
cable confusion, that it is difficult to decide, in many in- 
stances, which of the two was most present to his mind, 
In order to save perplexity to the reader, I will select, at 
the risk of error, what seems most pertinent, in the fol- 
lowing passages, to the Underworld victory, and defer to 
their close a connected specimen of the confusion whence 
they are extracted. 

But further, as Satan was not only Lord of the Under- 
world and the dead, but Ruler of this world, the same 
victory which liberated the departed from his dominions 
broke his power over men in this life, so that Irenzeus 
blends together, as do other Fathers, the liberation from 
the Underworld and the liberation from Satan in this life, 
under the general idea of MaN’s liberation from thraldom. 

The reader will remember Origen’s expression, that 
Christ descended to wrestle (wadaiowv) with the powers 
of the Underworld as their master. Ireneus says: ** He 
wrestled (Juctatus est) and conquered, for he was a man 
contending for the fathers, . . . he bound the strong one 
and set loose the weak. 1° ¢ For if a MAN had not con- 
quered the enemy of mankind, that enemy would not 





® Thus Satan had got the better of Adam when the latter was not 
hungry by inducing him to eat, and had therefore to be conquered by 
Christ’s refusal to eat when he was hungry; that is, by his refusal to 
turn stones into bread. (Cont. Heres. 5, 21, 2.) [The human race] 
which the vircIn Eve bound by her INCREDULITY, the VIRGIN Mary 
freed by her TRUSTFULNEss. (Cont. Heres. 3, 22, 4.) — By wood [of the 
tree of life] we were made debtors of God; by wood [of the cross] we 
receive remission of our debt. (Cont. Hares. 5, 17, 3.) 

10 Cont. Heres. 3, 18, 6 (3, 20). 





§ XVL.] | _ ‘THE VICTORY. 69 


have been justly conquered.”?4 And again: “For if 
[that] man who had been formed by God that he might 
live, after having lost his life here, through the injury 
sustained from the serpent which had corrupted him, had 
no more returned to life, . . . God would have been con- 
quered; ... but since God is unconquered, .. . he by 
the second man bound the strong one, and spoiled his 
goods, and abolished death, vivifying that man (Adam) 
who had been rendered dead. . . . So that he who had 
led man captive was justly in his turn taken captive by 
God, but man who had been led captive was freed from 
the chains of condemnation.” 

** But since man is saved, it is proper that the first 
formed man should be saved. Since it is too unreason- 
able to say that he who was violently injured by the 
enemy, and first suffered captivity, should not be rescued 
by that enemy’s conqueror, but that the children should 
be rescued, whom he generated in the same captivity. 
Nor indeed will the enemy appear conquered while the 
former spoils yet remain with him.” ® 

** Adam had been conquered, all life (immortality ? }*) 
being taken from him ; therefore, the enemy being in turn 
conquered, Adam received life; . . . his salvation is the 
abolition of death. Therefore, when the Lord vivified 
man, that is, when he vivified Adam, Death was abol- 
ished.”? 

*¢ As by a conquered human being our race descended 
into death, thus by a human victor we ascend into life. 
And as through a man Death bore away the palm from 
us, thus we in our turn through a man bear away the 
palm from Death.’ 1 

** The Word steadfastly bound him (the apostate angel) 
as his fugitive, and plundered his goods, that is, the men 





1 Cont. Heres. 3, 18, 7 (3, 20). 
2 Cont. Heres. 3, 23, 1 (3, 33). 
1 Cont. Heres. 3, 23, 2 (3, 34). 
1 On the meaning of life and death, see Appendix, Note B. 
% Cont. Heres. 3, 23, 7 (3, 38). 
_ 1 Cont. Heres. 5, 21, 1. 


70 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XVI. 


who were detained by him, and whom he used unjustly. 
And with justice was he led captive who had led man 
captive unjustly, but man... was drawn out from the 
power of his possessor.” #7 

It is due to the reader to state, that I am more uncer- 
tain as to the actual meaning of the foregoing extracts, 
than as to that of any others which I either have ad. 
duced or shall hereafter adduce as proofs in the course of 
the present work. The diffuseness and repetition of 
Irenzeus on the subject: of Christ’s victory do not render 
him plain. Oftentimes the connection seems to admit 
the idea only of a moral victory, which restored in some 
way Adam’s immortality. Yet Irenzeus believed that 
Christ went personally to the Underworld to bring up 
Adam ; he appears to have shared, as will be seen in the 
next section, the idea of the Saviour having deceived 
Satan in order to gain admission to his dominions ; and 
he believed that man — that Adam — “ was drawn out 
from the power of his possessor”? ; which cannot have 
meant an extraction from the wiles of Satan that were 
misleading him to sin, since, according to Irenzeus, man’s 
capacity of sinning ceased with this life® It can hardly 
be that he did not share the belief of a victory in the 





17 Cont. Heres. 5, 21, 3. 

18 66(God) ejected him (Adam) from Paradise, and removed him far 
from the wood of life, not envying him the wood of life, as some dare to 
say, but in compassion for him, that he might not remain forever a 
transgressor, and that the sin in which he was involved might not be 
everlasting, nor the evil interminable and incurable. He prevented fur- 
ther transgression by the interposition of death, and by making sin to 
cease through the termination that he imposes on it by the dissolution 
of the flesh which takes place on this earth ; that man ceasing to live to 
sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God.” — Irenzeus, Cont. 
Heres. 3, 23, 6 (8, 37). 

An analogous view of death to this is also presented by Theophilus. 
*¢Through his disobedience man subjected himself to labor, suffering, 
- grief, and finally fell under death ; and God allowed this to man as a 
great benefit, that he might not remain forever in sin.??— Adv. Autoly- 
cum, 2, 25, 26, p. 867. C.D. I alter the Benedictine punctuation. 
Theophilus, however, did not hold to an original immortality in Adam. 


“—_— wT Tes ee ee 








§ XVI] THE VICTORY.) = 71 


Underworld by which some of the foregoing phraseology 
was prompted. That the reader may have the promised 
specimen of commingled figures/out of which the above - 
extracts have been made, I will add the following, pre- 
mising that he will find it more antithetic than intel- 
ligible : — 

*¢ With these (transgression and apostasy) the apostate 
angel bound man. By man, therefore, it was proper that 
he, when conquered, should in his turn be bound with 
the same chains, .. . that man, being freed, should re- 
turn to his God, leaving the chains, that is, transgression, 
to him through whom himself had been formerly fet- 
tered. For the imposition of fetters’on him (¢l/ius colli- 
gatio) was made the means of man’s liberation, since * no 
one can enter the strong one’s house and plunder his goods 
unless he shall. first have bound the strong one??? 

Irenzus does not inform us whether Satan, prior to 
being bound, was, like Adam in his original state, pure 
and untrammelled by the fetters of sin. Nor, if the 
reverse were the case, does he explain how Satan should 
be more hindered now than formerly by such fetters from 
detaining his captives. The passage is a curious exem- 
plification of the manner in which a man may, by the 
utterance. of words,.cheat. himself-into the supposition 
that he is expressing ideas. | 

Tertullian on this subject challenges the Jews with his 
usual roughness. ‘* Come on now: if you have read the 
words of the Prophet in the Psalms (Ps. 96, 10, 97, 1), 
* The Lord has REIGNED from the Wood? —I await your 
understanding of it; Do you think perhaps it means 
some wooden king and not Christ, who from the time of 





He believed him capable of attaining either mortality or immortality. See 
Adv. Autolycum, 2, 27, p. 368. A. B., cited in Appendix, Note B. 

_ The Rule of Faith, ascribed to Novatian, also says that: Adam ** was 
driven away to prevent his touching the wood of the tree of life, . . . 
that he might not by living forever... carry about with him an un- 
ending fault.??— Pp. 13, 14.. And Methodius advances a similar view. 
See extract in Epiphanius, Adv. Heres. 64, 23, Opp. 1, p. 546. D. 

_  Trenus, Cont. Heres. 5, 21, 3.. 


72 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XVI. 


his suffering on the wood reigned, Death being con- 
quered ??20 A comparison of the citation already given 
from the same connection under the preceding section 
will evince that the Lord of the Underworld is the per- 
son designated by Death. 

Cyprian lays down as one of his positions to be proved, 
*¢ That (Christ) should not be CONQUERED by Death, nor 
remain in the Underworld.” 7! This cannot have meant 
that he was not to die, nor does it— considering the 
date when it was written — admit. a natural interpreta- 
tion, save as referring to the exertion of power requisite 
to escape from below. Elsewhere he says of Jesus, that 
*¢ it was requisite for him to suffer, not in order that he 
might undergo, but that he might conquer Death... . 
Then he was carried in a cloud to heaven, that as a victor 
he might place before his Father man, whom he loved, 
whose cause he espoused, and whom he protected from 
Death.” 

The Latin Version or Versions of Scripture,” as quoted 
by Tertullian and Cyprian, were of a nature to spread the 
idea of a conflict below, and wherever that view pre- 
vailed, there was no doubt in the minds of Christians as 
to which party remained victor. 





20 Adv. Judeos, c. 10, Opp. p. 221. D. ** From the wood”? may have 
been either a memoriter confusion of verse 12 with 10, a marginal com- 
ment, or an interpolation. 

21 Testimon. 2, 24. 

22 De Idol. Van. 14, Opp. p. 16. The expression on the same page, 
that the Saviour **compelled . . . the Underworld to yield,” refers to 
the restoration of Lazarus and others to life during his ministry, not ap- 
parently to his own Underworld mission. 

23 The Greek word vixos, victory, seems to have been exchanged for or 
confounded with vetkos, struggle or contest. ** Where, O Death, is thy sting ? 
Where, O Death, is thy contest ??? —Tertul. De Reswrrect. Carn. cc. 47, 
51, 54, Opp. pp. 415. D., 419. D., 423. ©. Where, O Death, is thy 
victory, or contest? Where, O Death, is thy sting ??? —Idem, adv. Mar- 
cion, 5,10, Opp. p. 596. B. ** Death is swallowed up in the contest. Where, 
O Death, is thy sting? Where, O Death, is thy contest ?9? — Cyprian, 
Testimon. 3, 58, p. 81. In this form it would seem more difficult to at- 
tach a merely metaphorical sense to the passage. 


ne ae 


he oS ee OR el! 





§ XVI] . THE VICTORY. 73 


The Underworld, like other conquered countries, seems 
to have suffered from the hostile visitation.. A portion 
of a forged document, first mentioned by Eusebius and | 
probably belonging to the latter part of the third century, 


- is commonly quoted by the title of Pseudo-Thaddeus. It 


represents that Apostle as saying: “To-morrow... I 
will proclaim . . . how he was crucified, and descended 
into the Underworld, and rent open the inclosure which 
since eternity had not been rent, and rose again, and 
led the dead; for descending alone he wakened at the 
same time many, and thus ascended to his Father.” *4 

A passage in the Larger Greek Ignatian Epistles may 
also belong to the third century, though the same cannot 
be said of the whole Epistles. It is as follows: **Christ . . . 
was crucified and died, whilst the inhabitants of heaven, 
earth, and the Underworld looked on. .. . Inhabitants 
of the Underworld, that is, the multitude of those who 
ascended with the Lord. . . . And he descended into the 
Underworld alone, but ascended with a multitude, and 
rent the eternal inclosure, and destroyed its middle 
wall.%? 6 

Origen’s view as to the thoroughness of Christ’s vic- 
tory might already be inferred. Its strength in the 
reader's mind will not be diminished by the following: 
* The kingdom of Death is indeed already destroyed, and 
the captives which were held in it are taken away. But 
because the enemy himself and tyrant is yet to be de- 
stroyed, . . . at the close of the age, therefore we see him 
even now, not reigning, but rather robbing, and an exile 
from his kingdom, wandering through deserts and by-paths 


_ to seek for himself a band of the unbelieving.” * 


In perusing the language of a former age, the reader is 


sometimes exposed to the risk of attaching to it too much, 


and at other times too little, force. The latter danger I 
suppose to be in the present case the greater. The Chris- 
tians regarded themselves as in a conflict with the powers 





2% Euseb. Ecc. Hist. 1,13. Of the last clause three readings exist. 
% Epist. to Trallians, c. 9. 


_ % In Rom. Lib. 5,1, Opp. 4, p. 551. C. D. 


74 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XV. 


of evil. “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but 
against . the World-rulers of this darkness, against the 
spirits (ra iipievicdirsaid) of evil in heaven-high sitwations.??™ 
This was the language of Paul, and it was generally un- 
derstood by the Christians as ‘referring to their warfare 
with the demon powers who had falsely assumed the 
character of deities, who were trembling for the over- 
throw of their own authority, and who, to maintain it as 
long as possible, were instigating the Heathens in every 
way to persecute and crush Christianity. It was a mat- 
ter of pride with the Christians, that when a demon had 
possessed a man, the simple follower of Christ, in the 
might of his Master’s name, could put the imaginary 
deity into convulsions and drive him out. Their ardor 
kindled and their courage mounted, as the tide of battle 
seemed going against them. When persecutions thick- 
ened and a brother asked, whether it were allowable to 
fly,?8 Tertullian exclaimed, ** Do you fear man, O Chris- 
tian, . . . you of whom the demons should be afraid?” 
And while rack and fire did their work,®° the voice of the 
same writer rung out its bold, though ill-judged and ex- 
travagant, defiance of the Heathens, daring them to test 
the fancied divinity of their gods, and staking the Chris- 
tian exorcist’s life upon the issue, if he did not compel 
the imagined deity to confess itself an evil: spirit. ** Let 
some one be brought before your tribunals, who is known 
to be agitated by a demon. At the command of ANY 
Christian, that spirit shall as truly confess itself a demon 
as it elsewhere falsely proclaims itself a god. Equally 
let any one be produced of those who are regarded as 
impelled by the divine power, who by inhaling from the 
altars draw in the divinity with the fumes. . . . Let that 





27 Eph. 6, 12. . 
8 “You asked lately, Brother Fabius, whether it were permissible to 
fly during persecution. . . . In proportion as persecutions thicken, the 


inquiry should be carefully instituted, * How ought the faithful to anes 
them ??”? — Tertul. De Fuga in Persecut. c. 1, Opp. p. 689..A. B. 

29 De Fuga in Persecut. c. 10, Opp. p. 696 B. 

8 Tertul. Apol. c. 12, Opp. p. 14. B; compare ce. 2, 49, 50. 





§ XVI] | THE VICTORY. 75 


celestial virgin who promises rain, let A’sculapius him- 
self, the teacher of medicine. ... Unless they confess | 
themselves demons not daring to lie to a Christian, pour ~ 
out the blood of the audacious Christian on the spot.?? 
_ The Christians believed in the existence of these demon 
deities as thoroughly as they did in their own. The vic- 
tory won by their Master over the demon king was not 
to them an unmeaning tale. When the opponents of 
“Origen asked” the purpose of Christ’s descent, their tone 
c answer than that.he descended to con- 


eres 





| a eect sosline-n-condis in. which non 


kind was the stake to be fought for, and the Son of God 
on the one side, with the congregated hosts of hell on the 
other, were the contestants, — must forget that the de- 
mon deities were a fiction, and that the Underworld is an 
absurdity. As we read Origen’s exposition of the Twenty- 
second Psalm, we should imagine the infernal powers, 
greedy for their prey, as already gathering around their 





81 Ibid. ¢. 23, p. 24. D. 
_ 8 See § X. 

-8 Firmicus Maternus, in_the earlier part of the fourth century, 
attributes the earthquake and darkness at the Saviour’s death to the 
shock of the subterranean battle. Of the work which he addressed to 
Constantius and Constans, the sons of Constantine the Great, one chap- 
ter is a tolerably specific description of Christ's mission to the dead, from 
which the following isan extract: “During three days the mustered 
band of righteous was collected by him (the Son of God), that the wick- 




















_ edness of Death mi longer prevail against-them,.nor_the virtue of 


the righteous give way through prolonged despair,...He broke [open] the 
eternal prison-house, and the iron doors collapsed at the command of 
Christ.The_earth. trembled, and by the shuddering. of.its firm founda- 
tions acknowledged the presence of Christ’s divine power. Before the 
appointed-timethe circling whirl of the world [not of the earth] hurries 
the day [to its conclusion], and the sun with hastened course verges into _ 
night, whilst the measure of the daily hours is as yet incomplete. The 
very summit of the veil was rent, and the darkness of night covered the 
earth’s orb with obscurer shades. All the elements were disturbed when 
Christ fought, — when he first armed a human body against the tyranny 


- of death.?? — Ch. 24. 


76 UNDERWORLD MISSION. — [§ XVI. 


victim on the cross, the angels as shrinking in panic from 
the descent, and the Saviour as hurried to the Under- 
world, in the gloom of whose mighty cavern, unaided and 
alone, he was to prove his strength against the king of — 
terrors and the thronging legions of darkness. No whis- 
per of incredulity should blunt our perceptions of the 
Saviour’s fidelity, — faithful to the conflict whence all 
save he had fled, — or prevent us from realizing his dread 
of it; for he forgets the agony of the cross in a prayer, 
not for support under his sufferings, but for the divine aid 
in that more dreadful struggle which impended. Doubt 
should not check the rising enthusiasm, when we learn 
that he “* broke in the adamantine gates of Death” and 
‘¢ wrestled with the powers there as their master”? Un- 
belief should not quell the thrill of triumph when we are 
told that he crushed man’s enemy in the security of his 
own fortress; that he ‘rove asunder? his * eternal prison- 
house,’ liberated his captives, desolated his kingdoms, and 
drove him forth a homeless vagabond to glean by plun- 
der in the by-ways a band of the unfaithful®* The 
thoroughness of the destruction raised the question sub- 
equently whether the Underworld had not been left 
tenantless.® 

We can sometimes be aided in determining the tone of 
feeling on any subject, by examining that which prevails 





8 That I may not be suspected of coloring, I give the original from 
Origen, or rather the Latin translation of Rufinus, which alone remains 
to us: ** Mortis quidem jam regna (Christus) destruxit, unde et capti- 
vitatem scribitur liberasse . . . videmus eum (Mortem) non tam regnare 
quam latrocinari: et depulsum regno, per deserta et avia cireumeuntem, 
querere sibi infidelium manum.’? — Origen in Rom. Tom. 5, 1, Opp. 


4, p. 551. C. D. 
% Evodius in the fourth century asked Augustine ** whether Christ 
. . - liberated all, . . . so that from the Lord’s resurrection till the 


judgment the Underworld should be empty.’? — Evod. Epist. 98 (163). 
Augustin. Opp. Vol. 2, p. 90. L. And in the addition to the Acts of 
Pilate, the Underworld is represented as saying to Satan, ** Turn and 
see that not one of the dead is left in me.?? — Thilo, Cod. Apoc. Nov. 
Test. p. 732. . 


§ XVI.] “SUNDAY CUSTOMS. — "7 


on a kindred one. The Christians kept the first day of 
the week in memory of their Master’s resurrection,®® and 
the customs of the day were such as well befitted a seascn 
of glad triumph. No posture of humiliation should sully 
it, or careworn countenance derogate from it. Six days 
in the week — unless in so far as Saturday was excepted 
among Oriental Christians — might a man bow in devout 
adoration, or prostrate himself in the agony of contrition, 
before his God. But on the first day of the week no 
Christian knee was permitted to bend in prayer,” nor 
was a Christian countenance to be anxious. On that 
day, as the deacon called the assembly to their devotions, 
it was with the admonition, ** Let us stand perfectly 
erect ;??®® and when the recurring year brought with it 
the anniversary of the Master’s resurrection, his follow- 
ers for the space of fifty days maintained the same upright 
position in their prayers.” 





86 66 We observe the eighth day joyously, on which Jesus rose from the 
dead and ascended into heaven.*? — Barnabas, Zpist. c. 15 (13, 10). 

87 66 Abstinence from kneeling on the Lord’s day is a symbol of the 
resurrection, . . . and this custom originated in Apostolic times, as the 
- blessed martyr Irenzus, Bishop of Lyons, says in his work on the Pass- 
over.*? — Respons. ad Quest. 115, ad Orthodoxos, Just. Opp. p. 
490. A. ** We deem it impious (nefas) to fast on the Lord’s day, or to 
pray kneeling.?? —Tertul. De Corona Mii. c. 3, Opp. p. 121. D. “Since 
there are some who kneel on the Lord’s day, . . . the holy synod decrees 
that prayers be offered standing.?? — Council of Nice, Canon 20. 

% 66 On the Lord’s day we ought not only to abstain from kneeling, 
but from all anxiety of mind”?—Tertul. De Orat. c. 18. (All after 
¢. 14 is wanting in Rigault’s edition.) ‘*If any one from a pretence of 
asceticism fasts on the Lord’s day, let him be anathema.’? — Council 
of Gangra, Canon 18. 

89 "Op0Gs oraGuev ads. Chrysostom. Hom. 29 (al. 4), De Incompre- 
hensibili Dei Natura, T. 1, p. 375 ; Hom. 2, in 2Cor. p. 740. I take the 
quotation, though not the translation, from Bingham’s Antig., Book 13, 
¢c. 8, § 8. Bingham calls this the ** usual form so often mentioned by St. 

Chrysostom and others.”? 

_ 40 6 Tn which (i. e. the discourse on the Passover) Ireneus mentions 
the fifty-day [festival], in which we do not bend the knee, since it has an 
- equal force with the Lord’s day.*? — Respons. ad Queest. 115, ad Or- 


78 UNDERWORLD’ MISSION. [§ XVII. 


Even the Valentinians borrowed the language, if not 
the ideas, of the Catholics concerning a victory, for the 
Doctrina Orientalis, in treating of Death’s rule, the in- 
sufficiency of other aid, and the interference of Christ, 
terms him ‘the mighty Athlete.’ # 





§ XVII CHRIST'S INCARNATION CONCEALED FROM 
SATAN. 


WHAT induced Satan or his powers to take so danger- 
ous a prisoner into their dominions? The answer to this 
question forms a singular chapter in Christian history. 
~ Paul had spoken (1 Cor. 2, 7, 8) of the hidden wisdom of 
God, * which none of the rulers of this world knew, for if 
they had known tt they would not have crucified the Lord 
of glory.”? The passage had no connection properly with 
the present subject, but the Fathers understood by the 
rulers of this world the powers of evil, who, they sup- 
posed, had been deceived as to the true character of 
Jesus. 

Origen informs us: ** The adverse powers, when they 
delivered the Saviour into the hands of men, did not per- 
ceive that he was delivered up for the salvation of any; 
but since none of them knew the * wisdom of God con- 
cealed in a mystery? they so far as in their power deliv- 
ered him to be killed, that his enemy Death might seize 
him for a subject, as he had seized those who died in 
Adam. But the MEN who killed him were prompted [or 





thodox. Just. Opp. p. 490. A. ‘‘ With the same immunity [from fasting 
and kneeling as on the Lord’s day] we rejoice from Easter to Pentecost.”? 
—Tertul. De Cor. Mil. c. 3, Opp. p. 121. D.. ** We observe the same 
custom in those [fifty days] as on the Lord’s day, during which our an- 
cestors handed it down to us that no fast was to be kept or knee bent, on 
account of reverence for the Lord’s resurrection.?? — Cassian, Collat. 21, 
c. 20, as cited in Bingham’s Antig. 20, c. 2, § 5. 1 
41 Méyas dywuorys. Ch. 58, p. 983. Cp. in Letter from Lyons-and 
Vienne (Euseb. Lec. Hist. 5,15; Vol. 2, 23 ed, Heinich.) the expression 


dxaraywuorov aOA\nrhy xpiorov. 


§ XVIL] CHRIST’S INCARNATION CONCEALED FROM SATAN. 79 


impressed; turovpevor] by the will of those [the demons] 
who wished Jesus to become a subject of Death.” } 

By the wisdom of God concealed in a mystery, would 
seem to be meant, in this connection, a previously ar- 
ranged plan of the Deity for misleading Satan. The au- 
thor of the Homilies on Luke, who often copies or imitates 
Origen, alleges this intention of the Deity as the object 
of Mary’s having been not only betrothed, but — as he 
understands Matthew — publicly united in marriage, to 
Joseph. *¢ For if she had not had a betrothed one, and, 
as was commonly supposed, a husband, [the virginity of 
Mary] could not have been concealed from the Prince of 
this World. For immediately the thought would have 
silently suggested itself to the Devil, * That offspring 
must be divine. It must be something above human 
nature.? 

*¢ On the other hand, the Saviour had arranged that the 
Devil should be ignorant of his dispensation? and as- 
sumption of a body. Therefore he concealed it at his 
birth, and afterwards commanded his disciples that. they 
should not make him known; and when he was tempted 
by the Devil, he nowhere confessed himself the Son of 
God, but only answered, * I ought not to adore you, nor 
to make those stones bread, nor to cast myself headlong, 
and in saying these things was always silent as to his 
being the Son of God. Search also in the other portions 
of Scripture, and you will find it to have been. Christ’s 
will that the Devil should not know the coming of the 
Son of God. For the Apostle, asserting that the adverse 
powers were ignorant that he was to suffer, says, * We 
speak wisdom, . . . which none of the princes of this world 





1 Comment. in Matt. Tom, 13, 8, Opp..3, p. 582. A. B. 

2 Dispensationem, not improbably a translation of ofxovoutay, the same 
word which will appear in extracts under this section from Justin Martyr 
and the Doctrina Orientalis, and which is used by Paul (Coloss. 1, 25) in 
close connection with the mystery of which the Homilies in the preceding 
quotation give an interpretation. See also, in a note near the close of this 
section, the same connected use of Economy and. Mystery in an extract 

from Ephes. 3, 9, 10. 


80 . _ UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XVI. 


knew, for if they had known it they would not have cruei- 
fied the Lord of glory? ... 

“¢ But it may be objected that a demon did know it, — 
THAT ONE who said in the Gospel (Matt. 8, 29),* Art thou 
come to torment us before our time ? we know who thou art, 
the Son of God.? But consider that it was an inferior in 
wickedness who recognized the Saviour. But he who is 
greater in wickedness, and a turncoat, and thoroughly 
worthless, was prevented by the very superiority of his 
wickedness from knowing the Son of God.?4 

Both in the Larger and Smaller Greek Epistles of Igna- 
tius is the following passage, which is referred to by the 
foregoing writer in the above connection : — 

*¢ There was concealed from the Prince of this World 
the virginity of Mary, [the character of] her offspring, 
and likewise the death of the Lord [that is, the fact that 
the Messiah was to die], the three mysteries of the cry® 
which transpired secretly.” ® 

Irenzeus shared in the view that the Devil had been 
deceived. *¢ When the Devil,” he says, tempted (Jesus) 
by the remark (Matt. 4, 3), */ thou art THE SON OF Gop, 
command these stones to be made bread, the Lord repelled 
him by the precept of the Law, saying, * Jt is written, MAN 





8 Versipellis. Theophilus says that Satan was “called a dragon 
because he was a runaway from God,?? Apdxwy dia 7d drrodedpaxévae adrov 
dd T00 Geod. (Ad Autol. 2,28, Justini Opp. 369. B.C.) Whether a kin- . 
dred thought is contained in the above expression, I do not know. Pos- 
sibly, however, versipellis may mean manifold in disguises. 

4 Hom. 6, Origen. Opp. 3, pp. 938, 939 (5, 105). 

5 Kpavyfjs, an allusion probably to Hebrews 5, 7, where Jesus is said to 

-have asked deliverance from Death with a * loud cry,’ xpavyjjs loxupas. 
Only a mortal, it might be thought, would utter such a cry, and it implied 
the presence of death. Yet the Son of God could alone have uttered it 
with the hope of being heard. In the Addition to the Acts of Pilate, 
Satan is represented as saying of Jesus, ‘‘ I KNow that he is a man, for I 
heard him say, * My soul is greatly oppressed even to death, 9? — Thilo, 
Cod. Apoc. Nov. Test. pp. 702-704. 

6 Ephesians, c. 19 (4,10). The Larger Epistles add, ** but [which] are 
manifested to us.?” The Smaller ones read, ** which were done secretly 
by God.” 


§ XVII] CHRIST’S INCARNATION CONCEALED FROM SATAN. 81 


does not live by bread alone. In reply to the remark, ‘Jf 
thou art the Son of God, (Jesus) used this confession, ap- 
propriate to a MAN, which blinded him.” 7 

Clement of Alexandria also, in elucidating the value of 
ambiguous language, illustrates it from the fact that by 
an ambiguous expression the Lord outwitted (codifera:) 
the Devil at the time of the temptation.” 8 

In the Ascension of Isaiah, the Pseudo-Prophet, speak- 
ing of the birth of Jesus, says, ** I perceived . . . that he 
was concealed from all the heavens, the principalities and 
the gods of this world.?? ® 

Justin Martyr may have had an analogous idea, but he 
expresses it less clearly. ** The Messiah, this Son of God, 
who existed before the morning star [sun ?] and moon, yet 
being incarnated, endured to be born of this virgin from 
the race of David, that through this * Economy” the Ser- 
pent, who from the beginning [of the world ?] did wick- 
edly, and the angels who have [since] become (or who are) 
like him, might be routed and Death be humbled, and at 
the second coming of Christ [at the beginning of the 
millennium ?] wholly lose his power over those who [both] 
believe on him (Jesus) and live acceptably ; finally [after 
the millennium ?] ceasing to exist, when some shall be sent 
for punishment to the condemnation of eternal fire, and | 
others shall live together in a state of immortality, free 
from suffering, corruption, and grief.’? 1° 





7 Cont. Heres. 5, 21, 2. 

8 Strom. 1, 44, Opp. p. 342, lines 31-33. 9 Ch. 11, 16. 

1 Dialog. c. 45, p. 141. B. C.—In c. 39 (Opp. p. 186. D.), Justin 
says that the rulers ** will not cease from killing and persecuting, through 
the influence of that wicked and deceitful spirit, the Serpent, such as 
confess the name of Christ, until he (Christ) shall again appear, and put 
an end to all, and apportion to each according to his deserts.*? The mean- 
ing of the passage in the text may be, that though Satan no longer gets 
possession of Christians so as to carry them to his realms, yet he has the 
power of persecuting them in this life. Or it may be as follows : Prior 
to Christ’s advent, Satan as Lord of the Underworld held unlimited 
sway. Now he is humbled, yet he still obtains, not only unbelievers, but 
such CHRISTIANS as in his character of moral tempter he can mislead. 
At the millennium, righteous Christians are to be assembled in Christ’s 


82 “2 > 95 UNDERWORLD =< MISSION, ~~ [§ XVIL. 


Even in the opinions of the Theosophic Gnostics, the 
idea exists of Death having been outwitted. ** Death, the 
Doctrina Orientalis informs us, ** was outmanceuyred by 
artifice, d0Aw dé 6 Odvaros KareotparynyyOn, for when the body 
died, and Death was on the point of seizing him [i. e. the 
man Jesus], the [Aton] Saviour [who had previously left 
him and risen again], sending an avenging ray of his power, 
frightened Death away.”?"' And a prior chapter gives us 
as the reason for the Saviour’s injunction to his disciples, 
in descending from the mount of transfiguration, *¢* Ted/ 
it to no one, lest, understanding what the Lord is, they 
should abstain from laying hands on the Lord, and the 
‘Economy? should be fruitless, and Death should abstain 
from the Lord, as [it would be] to no purpose to make an — 
effort on a hopeless case.? 4 

In a work called Extracts from the Prophetical Writings,'® 
attributed to Clement of Alexandria, a somewhat fuller 
statement is made of the actual amount of knowledge 
which the Devil possessed. ‘** The Devil knew that the 
Lord was to come, but whether this were he, he did not 
know. Wherefore he tempted him that he might ascertain 
his power. ° Jf? said he, and [then] left him for a sea- 
son; that is, he deferred the discovery till the resurrec- 
tion. For he knew that the one who should rise again 
was the Lord, as did also the demons, for they sus- 
pected Solomon to be the Lord, but knew, on his commit- 
ting sin, that he was not..... . All the demons knew that 
the Lord was he who should rise after suffering.» ® 





kingdom and withdrawn from his temptations. He will wholly lose his 
power of ‘carrying them to his dominions, for he shall not be allowed to 
mislead them. At the close of the millennium, he will cease to exist. 

11 Doct. Orient. c. 61, Clem. Opp. p. 984. 

2 Doct. Orient. c. 5, Clem. Opp. p. 968. 

18 Ex Scripturis Propheticis Ecloge. It will be referred to hereafter 
by the abbreviation Eclog. Prophet: 

14 The word * God? introduced by Sylburg into the text from the mar- 
gin of a previous edition, and copied by Potter, merely embarrasses’ the 
connection. 

16 Ch. 53, Clem. Opp. p. 1002. As the knowledge attributed to the 
demons in the above citation surpassed that which men had had, the 





§ XVII] CHRIST'S INCARNATION CONCEALED FROM SATAN. 83 


In the foregoing extract, the term ‘resurrection? in- 
cludes probably. everything which pertained to the 
Saviour’s breaking away trom Death,— an extent of 
signification not uncommon? whilst the idea of an 
Underworld mission existed. The term ‘resurrection, 
however, is in Greek the same as ‘ rising again,? and one 
Catholic writer seems to have used it in. this latter’ sense, 
as equivalent with the term ‘ascension, and to have con- 
nected it with the prevalent idea that Satan was the lord 
of this world, or prince of the powers of the air, who had 
placed his throne in the firmament. 

The writer alluded to'is the already quoted author of 
the Ascension of Isaiah, by whom the Deity is represented 
as saying to Christ, “*Go, descend through all the 
heavens ; descend to the firmament, and the “world, even 
to the angel who is in Hell,” but who has not yet been 
hurled to utter perdition. Assimilate thyself . . . to the 
form of the angels of the firmament, and, carefully guard- 
ing thyself, be assimilated even to the angels who are in 
Hell... . When from the gods of death thou shalt 
ascend to ‘thy own place, .. . ‘then .. . shall the princi- 
palities and powers of the world worship thee.?4* And 
afterwards this Pseudo-Prophet remarks concerning the 





writer adds what he probably intended for an explanation. ‘ Enoch al- 
ready informs us that the transgressing angels taught men astronomy, 
soothsaying, and the other arts.?? — bid. Compare Book of Enoch, ce. 8 
and 68.. According to this, they must have had superhuman means 
of knowledge. Others than this writer supposed them to have had some 
inkling of Christianity prior to their expulsion or fall from heaven. 

16 See the third citation from Origen under § VIII. The whole ac- 
count of Christ’s descent to the Underworld contained in the addition to 
the Acts of Pilate bears in the Paris manuscript D, and perhaps in others, 
as its title, *The Resurrection.? See Thilo, Cod. Apoc. p. 606. Com- 
pare also the use of the term in a citation from the Church of England 
Homilies, to be given in Note G of the Appendix. 

17 The Ascension of Isaiah was translated by Laurence from an Ethi- 
opic manuscript, the Ethiopic being no doubt a translation from the 
Greek, which is no longer extant. The word * Hell? in the English ver- 
sion of Laurence corresponds to *Inferos,? Underworld, in his Latin ren- 
dering. 

% Ch. 10, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15. 


84 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XVII 


Saviour’s ascension: ** I beheld him likewise in the fir- 
mament, where, as his form was not changed to theirs, 
all the angels of the firmament and Satan both perceived 
and worshipped him.?? 

A natural inference from the above would be, that its 
author distinguished Satan from the Angel of Death. 
This is possible. But the inconsistencies of the docu- 
ment in other respects are such as to render it probable 
that the extract, and considerable more to the same pur- 
pose not here cited, are the efforts of an incoherent mind 
to elucidate popular views of Paul’s language concerning 
principalities and powers,” in connection with Satan as 
prince of the powers of the air, and the concealment of 
Christ’s descent and incarnation from him. The incon- 
sistency of the Catholics — who placed Satan in the fir- 
mament as the God of this world, and at the same time 
located him in the Underworld as its lord — merely be- 
came more glaring when worked out by an incoherent 
mind. As the object of the writer was to make the 
Pseudo-Isaiah predict events which were regarded as 
having already occurred, it is not likely that he would 
advisedly make him predict things at variance with com- 
mon belief. 





19 Ch. 11, 23. 
20 6 He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, and that the 
death of the cross. Wherefore God exalted him, . . . that at the name of 


Jesus every knee should bow of those in heaven and on earth and under the 
earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”? —Phil. 2,8—11. 
“ That ye may know... the working of his mighty power, which he 
manifested in Christ by raising him from the dead. And he placed him 
at his right hand in a heaven-high position, far above all principality, 
and power, and lordship, and name.?? —Eph. 1,18-21. ** The economy 
[olxovoulav, the word used by Justin and the Doctrina Orientalis] of 
that secret which was hidden since the ages in God, the creator of all things 
[Griesbach omits 5:4 “Incod Xpucrod], that it may now be made known to 
the principalities and powers in heaven-high situations.?? — Eph. 3, 9, 10. 
The word * secret? scarcely expresses Paul’s meaning, which would be 
still less conveyed by the rendering * mystery,’ adopted in the Common 
Version. The foregoing translation, however, expresses a common view 
of the Fathers, which, as the reader by a cursory examination can satisfy 
himself, was a very different one from Paul’s. 





§ XVIII] THE RANSOM. 85 


§ XVIII THE RANSOM. 
1. Definition of Terms. 


An offering is something which may be presented to 
a friend, and there was no difficulty experienced by the 





1 This view, to a considerable extent, was blended by the Fathers with 
the idea of our self-sacrifice and Christ’s self-sacrifice to God. Origen, 
after quoting from the beginning of the twelfth chapter of Romans, pro- 
ceeds thus to comment on it: ** Since, says (the Apostle).we have shown 
that fleshly sacrifices are to be given up, according to the words of the 
Prophet, * Sacrifice and offering thow wouldst not; nor wre they pleasing 
to thee,? now | will teach you in what sacrifices God does delight. And 
these things I teach, not as commanding you, — for a legal command is 
unprofitable, — but as one who has undertaken the office of reconciling 
you to God. ‘J beseech you, brothers, and I beseech you not by the power, 
but by the mercy of God, .. . that you offer your bodies a living sacrifice, 
holy and well pleasing to God,’ that it may be * your reasonable service.’ 
. . . For such as mortify their members . . . offer intelligently (or rea- 
sonably) a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, and fulfil, accord- 
ing to its spiritual signification, that law concerning sacrifices which is 
laid down in Leviticus, . . . concerning each of which, when remarking 
on the Book of Leviticus, we endeavored to explain according to our 
capacity. . . . The Apostle, therefore, not only teaches Christian believ- 
ers to regulate their conduct and worship of God conformably to this, 
but even beseeches them by the mercy of God, in order thus to manifest 
that for the human race — prone as it is to fault — sacrifices of this kind 
have been provided by the commiseration of God, and that, if any of 
them should fall, the soul may be mended and restored to salvation, by 
a reasonable (or intelligent) offering, and by victims [appetites, passions, 
ete.] immolated in the manner that we have above described.?? — Com- 
ment in Rom. Lib. 9,1, Opp. 4, p. 643, col. 1. B. C., col. 2. A. B., p. 
644. A. B. 

The remarks on Leviticus above alluded to may be found in Hom. 2, 4, 
Opp. 2, pp. 196, 191. Elsewhere Origen seems to include under, and as 
a part of, this self-sacrifice, the immolation of Christ’s body at the cruci- 
fixion. **The Saviour,’? he says, ** was come into this world, that he 
might offer his flesh as a sacrifice to God for our sins. . . . As long as 
the flesh lusts in me against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, 


86 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XVII 


Fathers in regarding Christ or ourselves as competent to 
make an offering to ‘God, our Father and Friend. 

A Ransom, when not a metaphorical expression, as in 
the use of it by Justin? is defined with sufficient accuracy 





and I am not yet able to subject the flesh to the spirit, I am subject in- 
deed to God, but only in part, not wholly. . . . And, since we are all 
said to be HIS BODY and MEMBERS (1 Cor. 6, 15; 12, 27) so long as there 
are some among us who are not yet subjected with a perfect subjection, 
HE is spoken of [by the Apostle] as not subjected. But when he shall 
have consummated his work, and led his whole creation to the height of 
perfection, then he is regarded as subject in these whom he has rendered 
obedient to the Father, and in whom he has finished the work which his 
Father gave him to do, * that God may be all and in all.’ ?? — In Levit. 
Hom. 7,1, 2, Opp. 2, pp. 220. D., 221. E. F., 222. A. B. 

The Epistle ascribed to Barnabas speaks of Jesus as offering *the 
vessel of his spirit for our sins,’ ¢. 7 (6, 3), and in the same chapter 
(6, 5), as offering his § flesh? for the *New People’; but the connec- 
tion throws little light on it. 

In the Adumbrations ascribed to Clement is a quotation from 
1 Peter 1, 19, omitting all mention of the ‘Ransom? which is found 
in the eighteenth verse, ** With precious blood as of an uncontaminated 
and unspotted lamb.?? ** This,?? says the writer, * refers to the old Levit- 
ical and sacerdotal rites, but signifies a soul purified by righteousness 
which is OFFERED To Gop.?? —Adumb. in Pet. Opp. p. 1006, col. 2, 
lines 17-21. The writer obviously regards the sacrifice as an eee 
not as a ransom. 

Cyprian quotes Psalm 51,17, ‘‘ The sacrifice to God is a broken spirit. 
A contrite and humble spirit God does not despise®? ; and says, ** This sac- 
rifice you offer to God. This sacrifice you perform without intermission 
day and night, being yourselves made sacrifices to God. . . . As the 
Apostle exhorts, . . . ‘I bescech you, brothers, by the mercy of God, that 
you constitute your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God,? 

. in this way by greater deserts our works tend to the — 
of God’s good-will.?? — Epist. 86, p. 232. 

Arnobius deems the * reliable gifts and true sacrifices” to be ** views 
worthy of and consonant to the divine nature, — Diis dignas et eorum con- 
venientissimas nomini.?? — Adv. Gent. 7, 51, with which may be compared 
the unworthiness of other sacrifices in cc. 5, 6, 7, of the same book. 

2 See his use of the term * Ransomer? in a note under § [X., where’it 
must mean one who redeems by his power. The Valentinians, according 
to the old Latin translation of Irenzus (1, 2, 4), and according to Ter- 


ee Se ee 


i 


/ 
ee ee he ne ae 


~ a 


ie i ld eee, eee ‘ 





§ xvIII.] - THE RANSOM. © 87 


by Origen as **a gift to enemies given by the conquered - 
or by their leader, for the preservation and liberation of 
those who have been taken captive.?? 3 

_ After a perusal of the two foregoing sections, it would 
searcely be supposed that any who held the views there 
developed would regard Christ as having paid a ransom 
for mankind to their enemy and tyrant. Yet such is 
the view which is now to come before us. 


2. What was the lace? 


In the First Epistle to Peter it is said, ** Ye were ran- 
somed ... by the precious blood . . . of Christ.’* 

Before proceeding to the interpretations put upon this 
passage, it is requisite to state that the soul or life — both 
being expressed by the same word in Greek — was for- 
merly regarded as in the blood. Thus Tacitus, in narrat- 
ing the death of Lucanus, who was executed apparently 
by the then not uncommon method of bleeding, says, 
that, *¢as the blood flowed, he perceived his feet and 
hands to be growing cold, and his spirit to be retreating 
by degrees from the extremities, whilst his breast as yet 
remained warm and IN POSSESSION OF HIS MIND.?® And 


-again concerning Paulina, the wife of Seneca, who had 


bled nearly to death, the same writer remarks, — refer- 


. Ting, as the connection would indicate, to a period some 
years afterwards, — *¢ Her countenance and limbs were so 


blanched as to render it obvious that much of the vital 
spirit had been emptied out.??® 
Occasion will arise for introducing one or two other 





tullian (Adv. Valentin. c. 9, p. 293. D.), used the name * Ransomer’? for 
the same Aion who was also called Vindicator (see note appended to the 
extract from Arnobius under § XXII. 8), and they no doubt connected 
it with the idea of redemption by power. Several of their Hons received 
appellations from the names or attributes of Christ as used or understood 
by the Catholics. 
-® Comment. in Ps. 33 (34, 22), Opp. 2, p. 649. C. 
* Ch. 1, 18,, 19. 
5 Annals 15, 70, 
6 Annals 15, 64, 


88 9 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XVIII. 


passages’ based on this idea, and at the foot of the page 
will be found an instance of the systematic manner in 
which Origen carried it out.® 

On the above-cited passage from the First Epistle of 
Peter Origen comments as follows: “If therefore we 
were bought with a price, . . . we were bought doubtless 
from some one whose slaves we were, and who demanded 
such a price as he pleased for the release of those whom 
he held. It was the Devil, however, who held us, to 
whom we had been allotted (or into whose power we had 
been dragged) by our sins. He therefore demanded as 
our price the blood of Christ. ® 

And again: ** We were bought with the precious blood 
of Jesus. The souL of the Son of God was given as our 
ransom ; but not his spirit, for he had already committed 
that to his Father, saying, * Father, into thy hands I com- 
mend my spirit? ; nor yet his body, for we nowhere find 
any such thing written of him... 

6¢ And here I would admonish of their error those who, 
from a conceit of glorifying Christ, confound what per- 





7 See in Appendix, under Note B, extracts from the Adumbrations ane 
the Philosophumena. The latter states a view of Epicurus. 

8 Origen quotes Leviticus 17, 14: ** You shall not eat the blood, because 
the life (or soul) of ALL flesh is its blood, and you shall not eat the soul 
with the flesh®? ; and remarks that in this passage **the blood of ALL 
animals is most obviously declared to be their soul.?? — De Principiis, 2, 
8, 1, Opp. 1, p. 94. B. He explains that in insects usually deemed blood- 
less, the humor has the same force as the red blood, and constitutes the 
vital substance. Touching Christ, he argues that his incarnation implied 
a (human) soul, distinct from the divine nature: ** For since he had 
real flesh [which of course implied blood], he also had a real soul. As 
to the mention in the Scriptures concerning the soul of God (Ley. 26, 
11, 30), it is difficult to apprehend or communicate how it should be un- 
derstood, for we have once professed his nature to be simple and without 
any admixture. Yet in whatever manner it is to be apprehended, the 
soul of God seems sometimes to be mentioned. Concerning Christ there 
is no doubt, and therefore it does not appear to me absurd to say or be- 
lieve something of the same kind concerning the holy angels and other 
celestial powers.?? — De Princip. 2, 8, 2, Opp. 1, p. 94. B. C. 

® In Rom. Lib. 2, 13, Opp. 4, p. 495, col. 2. C. D. 





§ XVII] THE RANSOM. 89 


tains to the First-Born of the whole creation with what 
refers to the soul and body of Jesus, or perhaps to his 
spirit ; regarding what was seen and dwelt in this life as 
wholly one and uncompounded. For they inquire of us, 
¢Was the Divinity which inhered in the Image of the 
invisible God,— was the supereminence of the First- 
Born of the whole creation,— was he through whom all 
things were created in heaven and on earth, visible or in- 
visible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or 
powers, — was HE given as aransom?... and to whom 
was he given? . . . To an enemy who held us as captives 
until the ransom was paid? And was that enemy com- 
petent to exact such a ransom ?? 

*¢ Nor do I say these things as despising the soun of 
Jesus, or making it of small account. I only contend 
that IT was the ransom given by the WHOLE Saviour. But 
his exalted and divine nature could in nowise be given 
as aransom. ... And his body as a superfluity, — if we 
may thus style it,— constituted (or belonged to) that 
whole which [we read of], 1 Cor. 6, 17, * He who is joined 
to the Lord is ONE spirit.? 9 1 

It is maintained in the extract just given, that the 
body of Jesus formed no part of the ransom. This was 
“probably an expression of dissent from some of the 
Orthodox, who maintained that it was; that it had been 
given in exchange for our bodies. Origen, and the school 
to which he belonged, would not have thought our bodies 
worth ransoming. They deemed us well rid of them at 
death. On this point they differed little, if at all, from 
the Gnostics. The Orthodox maintained the restoration 
of our former bodies as all important. Tertullian argued, 
that as the body shared with the soul the duties and pri- 
vations of this life and the sufferings of martyrdom, it 
‘was not fair to separate them in the future reward. 

Now Irenzus, in treating of Death as swallowed up in 
victory, speaks of the flesh as “ in a certain manner under 





10 Comment. in Matt. Tom. 16, s, Opp. 3, pp. 726, 727. 
1 De Resurrect. Carnis, c. 8, Opp. pp. 384, 885. Compare Apol. c. 48 ; 
Ady. Mare. 1, 28; 5,11; Opp. pp. 42, D., 451. D., 598. A. 


90 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XVIIL. 


the dominion of Death ” ; and he no doubt speaks from 
the same point of view in affirming, touching the Ran- 
som, that *¢ the Lord gave his soul for our: souls, and’ his 
flesh for our fleshes, THY odpKa THY €avTov avTl Tov HLETEPOV 
capkov,?? 18 and finds in this another allusion, as he thinks, 
to the old dispensation. *¢ For (Christ) would not have 
had real flesh and blood [1. e. flesh and soul] wherewith to 
buy us out, unless he had been recapitulating in himself 
[the circumstances of] the old formation in Adam.” #4 
*¢ And since the Apostate acquired his mastery over us 
unjustly,” Ireneeus finds an antithesis in the conduct: of 
‘The Word, who * behaved justly even to the Apostate, 
redeeming from him his own [those who believed on him], 
not by force, as he originally mastered us when he seized 
rapaciously what was not his, but by persuasion and as 
became a divine being (Dewm), persuading him without 
violence to accept what he (?) wished.?? 

This is not very consistent with the same writer’s 
statement that the Word had bound the Apostate, plun- 
dered his goods, and JusTLy taken him captive. It, how- 
ever, afforded several new antitheses, which probably 
absorbed the attention of Irenzeus. If he perceived any 
of his own incongruities, he must have preferred leaving 
their solution to others, for he has not attempted it: him- 
self. 

In the first — the only genuine — epistle of Clement of 
Rome is a statement corresponding in phraseology with 


one of those quoted from Irenzus. Only a single, and 


evidently an interpolated, manuscript of this epistle ex- 
ists in the original, nor has any ancient translation been 
preserved which might aid in eliminating from it later 
additions. Clement lived before the Gnostic controversy, 
during or after which I suppose the passage included in 
brackets to have been added. ** In love the Master as- 
sumed our cause. From the love which he had for us, 





12 66 Qu et quodam dominio Mortis pressa est.2”— Cont. Heres. 5, 13, 3. 
18 Cont. Heres. 5, 1, 1. 
14 Cont. Heres. 5, 1, 2. 
16 Cont. Heres. 5,1, 1. 


f 
; 
y 





§ XVII] -. THE RANSOM. 91 


Jesus Christ our Lord, in accordance with God’s will, 
gave his blood for us [even his flesh for our flesh, and his 
soul for our souls]. See, beloved, how great and wonder- 
ful is love.?? 16 | 

‘Tertullian says that Christ “died . . . on account of 
the Church, that he might commute body for body, the 
fleshly for the spiritual,?? " that is, that he might give his 
physical body for the Church, which in a metaphorical or 
spiritual sense was termed his body. Elsewhere he speaks 
of Christ as the ‘ Redeemer of the flesh?® and again 
treats Christ’s suffering as the redemption of our flesh,” 
and again regards Christ as having redeemed our bodies 
with his body.” 


3. Why Satan accepted tt. 


It might seem that a single human body or soul, or 
both united, would be but a poor indemnification to Satan 
for losing the souls of mankind, yet none of the Fathers 
—in the period at least under consideration — have at- 
tempted to explain his willingness to receive it. 

There is another difficulty, however, lying on the face 
of the views which have been presented, namely, that 
Satan did not retain possession even of this soul. The 
solution —such as it is—of this difficulty must be 
found in the fact that Christ’s incarnation had been con- 
cealed from Satan, and in the explanation presented by 
the following passage. ** To whom,” says Origen, * did 
(Christ) give his soul as a ransom for many? Not, of 
course, to God.” Was it then to the Evil One? [Certain- 





16 Ce. 49, 50 (21, 7, 8). 

7 Adv. Marcion. 5, 19,.p. 613. C. 

18 De Resurrect. Carnis, c. 2, p. 380. A. 

19 De Pudicit. c. 11. 
~ 2 Adv. Mare. 5, 7. 

21 Some language of the Fathers might, if uttered by a modern divine, 
seem to imply a belief in the Vicarious Atonement, —in a satisfaction 
made to God. But so far at least as concerns those who lived in the sec- 
ond and third centuries, I believe that, in any instance where they have 
explained their own meaning, such a sense could not be forced into it. 


Hagenbach, whose Doctrinal History is entitled to a foremost rank 


92 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XIx. 


ly,] for he held us in his power until the soul of Jesus 
should be given him as our ransom ; he being deceived by 
the supposition that he could hold it in subjection, and 
not perceiving that it must be retained at the cost of 
torture which he could not endure.27 Wherefore Death, 
thinking to have become already his master, is his mas- 
ter no longer, he being rendered * free among the dead, 
stronger than the power of Death; and so much stronger, 
that of those whom Death had overcome, all who wished 
could follow him, Death no longer availing anything 
against them; for whoever is with Jesus is free from 
seizure by Death, averiAnrrés éort TG Oavarw.?? 23 

It was with a feeling of disappointment and regret 
that I perused for the first time the above passage in a 
writer whose wildest fancies are usually tinged with 
moral beauty. He is not the only individual, who, in 
attributing to one of the Saviour’s alleged natures what 
could not have been promised, performed, or affirmed by 
the other, has clouded the Master’s character with the 
appearance of deceit. 





§ XIX. RECONCILIATION TO GOD. 


THE Fathers regarded our sins as the means by which 
the demons obtained dominion over us. They also re- 





among works of its kind, who, to quote from the title-page of his ‘Church 
History of the 18th and 19th Centuries,’ writes from the point of view 
of * Evangelical Protestantism,’ and from his remarks on the Socinians 
in his Doctrinal History (Vol. 2, § 268, 2d edit.) appears to lay stress on 
the Atonement, — Hagenbach states that in Tertullian, who first uses 
the term ‘satisfaction,’ this expression has a sense the reverse of § vica- 
rious,’ that Tertullian uses it **of those who by confession and active 
repentance make reparation for their own sins.?? See his Doctrinal His- 
tory, 2d edit., Vol. 1, § 68, and note 5. 

22 Christ, it will be remembered, descended ** to wrestle with the powers 
there as their master.°? The only natural sense of the passage above is 
that Satan found his ‘ wrestler’s grasp? unendurable. 

73 Comment. in Matt. Tom. 16, s, Opp. 3, p. 726. A. B. 








eS 


§ XIXx.] RECONCILIATION TO GOD, 93 


garded these demons as the prompters of our sinful incli- 
nations. Whilst misled into sin by the agency of these 
demons, we were of course alienated from God. If Christ 
by a victory had inspired terror into the powers of dark- 
ness, or by a ransom to their prince had bought them off, 
so that they were willing to let his followers alone, 


the natural inference would be, that Christians need no 


longer be alienated from God. They could return to 
him. 

The whole history of the Christians evinces, that any 
expressions which indicate their having been ransomed 
or won from the powers of darkness must be taken with 
considerable allowance.! Yet they do treat themselves 
as peculiarly exempt from influences of the demons, and 
though not always definite, and sometimes, perhaps, in- 
consistent, as to the manner in which Christ had effected 
this, there are passages in which this moral exemption is 
connected with Christ’s Victory or Ransom, and in some 
of them our own service of God, or reunion with him, is 
blended into the conception. 

The author of the Homilies on Luke, often an imitator of 
Origen, quotes from Luke (1, 69-71), “* He has raised up 





1 A volume might be filled with their ideas of the contest which was 
still going on. The following may not be uninteresting to the reader as 
a specimen of views entertained by a spiritually-minded man concern- 
ing the moral conflict of Christians. Clement of Alexandria, speak- 
ing of the ‘spiritual powers against which we wrestle,’ says: * For I 
think that it is an occupation of the maleficent powers, that they endeavor 
to infuse their own disposition into everything, so that they may throw 
down and gain possession of us who have renounced them. It naturally 
follows that some get thrown down. But as often as men grapple more 
athletically in the conflict, the aforesaid powers fighting an all-powerful 
battle, and advancing even to the crown, then give out covered with 
*bloody dust? (év roAX@7@ AVOpw), and wondering at the victors.?? — 
Strom. Lib. 2,110, p. 487. A similar passage occurs, Strom. 7, 3, p. 839, 
lines 40 - 45. 

2 Even the Theosophic Gnostics held that after baptism the evil spirits 
**trembled before him on whom but a little previously they operated.?? — 
Doct. Orient. c. 77, Clem. Alex. Opp. p. 987. Knowledge, their own 


peculiar privilege, produced the same effect. — Doct. Orient. c. 78. 


94. UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XIx. 


a horn of salvation for us in the house of David his son, 
as he spoke by the mouth of the holy prophets, — a salvation 
from our enemies??? and continues his comments and 
quotations thus: ‘Let us not now think that mention 
is made of physical, but of spiritual enemies. For the 
Lord Jesus came * mighty in battle?*® to destroy all our 
enemies, that he might free us from their snares, — * from 
the hand of our enemies and the hand of those who hate us. 

6 70 werform mercy to our fathers? I think that, at 
the advent of the Lord, our Saviour, Abraham and Isaac 
and Jacob enjoyed God’s: mercy. | 

“¢ We were not sensible of our " enemies, nor did we 
perceive them fighting against us, but unconsciously (ne- 
scimus quomodo) we were rescued from their jaws and 
snares in a moment, and suddenly, and he transferred us 
into the inheritance and lot of the just. And we were 
‘ freed from the hand of our enemies without fear THAT 
WE MIGHT SERVE GOD IN HOLINESS AND RIGHTEOUSNESS 
BEFORE HIM ALL OUR DAYS.” # 

Ireneus had apparently a similar conception flobtinig 
before his mind, together with that of a release from the 
Underworld, in a passage already quoted : ** By a man (i. e. 
by a human Christ) it was proper that he (the apostate 
angel), when conquered, should be bound, . . . THAT MAN, 
BEING FREED, SHOULD RETURN TO HIS Gop.95 

The Epistle ascribed to Barnabas tells us : “It is writ- 
ten in what manner the Father commanded him (Christ). 
that, RANSOMING US FROM DARKNESS, HE SHOULD PREPARE 
FOR HIMSELF A HOLY PEOPLE. For the Prophet says (Is. 
42, 6, 7),* I the Lord thy God have called thee in righteous- 
ness,. . . and will strengthen thee,. . . to open the eyes of 





8 An allusion to Ps. 24,8. Jesus being regarded, according to a com- 
mon conception, as the special Deity of the Old Testament. See Appendix, . 
Note A. 

4 Hom. 10, Origenis Opp. 3, p. 948, col. 1C. D., 2 B. C. (5, 118- 
120). An accompanying Greek fragment, if by Origen, evinces that he 
had expressed himself in similar words. It is quoted from ‘‘sheets” of 
Grabe and Combefisius without mention of where they found it. 

5 Cont. Heres. 5, 21, 3. 





§ XIx.] RECONCILIATION TO GOD, 95 


the blind, to lead out the bond from their fetters, and such 
as sit in darkness out of the prison-house? Know, therefore, 
whence we were ransomed.” ® If the ransom from dark- 
ness be not a mere figure of speech, it must mean from 
the Powers or Prince of Darkness. The last part of the 
quotation from Isaiah may have been understood by the 
writer as referring to the release of the departed from the 
Underworld. He believed Christ’s Underworld Mission,’ 
and that the Saviour had ransomed us from Death? 
According to Justin, ** The offering of wheat-flour .. . 
for those purified from leprosy was a type of the Eucha- 
ristical [thank-offering] bread, which Jesus Christ our 
Lord gave us to partake of in remembrance of the suffer- 
ing which he suffered for such as are.purified in their 
souls from all wickedness, that we may at the same time 
thank God, both for the creation of the world. and all 
things in it, on man’s account, and for our liberation from 
the evil in which we were, and for the overthrow of the 
*Powers and Authorities? [the evil spirits], with a per- 
fect overthrow, through him who, in accordance with his 
will, became subject to suffering.?® The connection be- 
tween Christ's suffering and this liberation Justin does 
not explain. 
~ Tertullian appears to identify the purchase of man 
FROM HIS SINS with the ransom paid in the Underworld. 
After speaking of Christ’s sufferings and death, he adds: 





6 Ch. 14 (12, 20-22). 
7 See § VI. 

8 See § XXII. 4. 

® Dialog. c. 41, p. 137. D. E. In a preceding chapter (c. 39, p. 136. 
B. C.) Justin interprets Psalm 68, 18): ** He ascended on high, he led 
captive the captives,’? — as a prediction that the Christians should be * led 
captive’ out of their error or wandering (7)\dvys, the same word which 
after a few lines he connects as an adjective with Satan, the author of it). 
Whether this excludes any application by him of the same passage to the 
release of the departed from the Underworld, or whether the release of 
both living and dead from Satan’s power were identified in Justin’s mind 
as parts of man’s liberation, is not a question to be pronounced upon 
positively. I incline to the latter idea, as more consonant with the views 
of the age. 


96 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XIX. 


66 All this that we might be bought FRoM ouR sINs. The 
sun disappeared on the day of our purchase. Our eman- 
cipation took place in the Underworld, and our stipulated 
price (or our guaranty) is in heaven (apud inferos eman- 
cipatio nostra est et stypulatio nostra in celis). The eternal 
gates were lifted up that the King of Glory might enter, 
—the Lord of Hosts, who had bought man from the 
earth, nay, from the Underworld, into heaven. . .. And 
the Lord ransomed him from the angels,— the world- 
ruling powers, — from the spirits of wickedness, [and as a 
consequent] from the darkness of this age, from eternal 
judgment, from perpetual death. 1° 5 

Elsewhere, if I understand him, he directly connects 
the liberation from Satan or his angels with reconciliation 
to God. Opposing Marcion’s idea of another Deity than 
_ the Creator, Tertullian asks: ** To whom does (Christ) 
reconcile all things, making peace by the blood of his 
cross, unless to Him whom all things had offended, 
against whom they had rebelled through the promptings 
of the transgressing angel (or angels), WHOSE THEY LATELY 
WERE.” 

The reader may wish also to exercise his own judgment 
as to whether the idea of reconciliation, in the following 
passage from Cyprian, be intended as the effect of what 
precedes it, or whether it merely stand in juxtaposition 
therewith. Speaking of immortality, he treats it as a 
favor which Christ confers “* by subjecting Death to the 
trophy of his cross, by ransoming the believer at the price 
of his blood, by reconciling man to God, by vivifying mor- 
tality with a celestial regeneration.” * 





10 De Fuga in Persecut. c. 12, Opp. p. 697. D. 

11 Ady. Marcion. 5, 19, Opp. p. 613. B. Per transgressionem cujus no- 
vissime fuerant. Tertullian uses ‘the Transgression ? for the transgress- 
ing angel (or angels), in the same manner as Irenzeus uses * the Apostasy,’ 
Apostasia, for the apostate angel, Lib. 5,1, 1. So in 1 Pet. 1,1, duacmopa, 
‘the Dispersion,? means the dispersed Jews, and in Eph. 4,8, * the Cap- 
tivity ? means the captives, and Tertullian uses humanam servitutem for 
enslaved mortals, Adv. Marcion. 5, 8, quoted on p. 53. 

12 Ad Demet. ch. 26. On the vivifying of mortality, see Appendix, 
Note B. ; 





oe ht i 


§ xx.] DISCOMFORTS OF THE UNDERWORLD. 97 


To preserve unity of translation, I have used the word 
‘ransom? in the foregoing extracts, where sometimes, per- 
haps, the writer thought of a ‘redemption? effected by 
force. We have already seen that Justin connects the 
idea of power with the term * Ransomer,? in a passage 
which the reader would do well to compare with the 
present head.8 





§ XX. DISCOMFORTS OF THE UNDERWORLD. 


Tue Heathen conception of an Underworld was far from 
cheerful. Even its abodes for the innocent! were but a 
miserable exchange for this life. 





18 See note to the extract from Justin, under § IX. 

1 These must not be confounded with Elysium, the alleged residence 
of pet heroes. Smith’s Classical Dictionary (Anthon’s edit.), article 
Elysium, says : “In Homer (Od. 4, 563), Elysium forms no part of the 
realms of the dead ; he places it on the west of the earth, near Ocean, and 
describes it as a happy land, where there is neither snow, nor cold, nor rain, 
and always fanned by the delightful breezes of Zephyrus. Hither favored 
heroes, like Menelaus, pass WITHOUT DYING, and live happy under the 
rule of Rhadamanthys. The Elysium of Hesiod and [that of] Pindar are 
in the Isles of the Blessed (uaxdpwy vio), which they placed in the 
Ocean. . . . The Elysium of Virgil is part of the lower world, and the 
residence of THE SHADES of the Blessed.”? This last implies (see p. 164 
n.) that Virgil placed sun and stars within the earth, which I formerly 
discredited but of which folly I have since found a solution. A Jewish . 
work which he imitates (see Judaism, Note A, footnote 21%) spoke of two 
localities, Paradise a place of perpetual light, and the Elysian Plain which 
in that document probably corresponded to Abraham’s bosom in the Un- 
derworld. Virgil, who was no expert in Jewish theology, confused the 
two, thus putting sun and stars into the Underworld. He makes these 
fields the temporary abode of a few from among the dead (pauci lata arva 
tenemus, Aineid, 6, 744) who have been put through a kind of pur- 
gatory or purifying process (Mneid, 6, 736-745), and who experience 
conjointly (agmine magno, Ammeid, 6, 749), after a thousand years, a 
physical resurrection, an idea borrowed perhaps (see Judaism, Note A, 
footnote 65) from the Erythrean verses. 


98 UNDERWORLD MISSION, [§ xx. 


In a somewhat copious account of the Lower Regions 
given us by Virgil, we are told: **The next localities 
[after those -allotted to such as have been unjustly put to 
death] are inhabited by the afflicted, who in innocence 
destroyed themselves, and, sick of the light, threw away 
their own life. How gladly would they now endure poy- 
erty and severe labor [provided it were] in upper air !??? 

The Christians who installed Satan as ruler of the 
Underworld did not certainly add to its attractions as a 
residence ; yet it may be doubted whether his presence 
increased their conceptions of its gloom. In fact, the 


distinction in it between Abraham’s bosom and the abode - 


of the wicked, though theologically recognized by Chris- 
tians, seems to have been merged in the generally desolate 
and dreary ideas of the whole region.® ; 
Clement of Alexandria, alluding to the despair, not of 
the wicked, but of the good below, — the despair of those 
who afterwards heartily accepted the Master’s teaching 
as soon as proffered, — speaks of them *¢ as having given 
themselves up to destruction with the feeling of a man 
who voluntarily flings himself overboard into the sea.?? 4 
And the passage already quoted from the Writer to the 
Hebrews can hardly be interpreted in a natural manner 
without implying this extremity of dread at the idea of 
consignment to the * Kingdom of Death. Christ partook 
of our nature, “that through his death he might destroy 
him who has the dominion of death, that is, the Devil, and 
[thereby] free as many as were subjected to A SLAVERY 
DURING THEIR WHOLE LIVES by their fear of Death.?® 
The lines of Watts, applied to such a futurity, would 
become more intelligible than if understood of anything 
which he himself can have been supposed to believe :— 





2 Aineid, 6, 434 — 437. 

8 Beausobre overlooks this fact, as well as falls into some other errors 
in his remarks concerning Marcion’s view of Christ’s Underworld mission, 
which may be found in his Histoire du Manicheisme, Vol. 2, p. 112. He, 
however, is more successful than Mosheim in seizing Marcion’s point of 
view. : 

* Strom. 6, 45, p. 763. 5 Ch. 2, 14, 15. 





§ xx.] DISCOMFORTS OF THE UNDERWORLD. 99 


** But darkness, Death (?), and long despair 
Reign in unbroken silence there.” 


It was an hereafter which not only failed to buoy or sus- 
tain, but which oppressed the soul. 

Tertullian, at the date of his tract De Anima, maintained 
that, prior to the resurrection, Christians themselves, ex- 
cepting martyrs, were not exempt from the Underworld. 
In that treatise, therefore, he might have been expected 
to bring into strong light the distinction between Abra- 
ham’s bosom and the place of the wicked, —a distinction 
which he himself held. Yet, in that very tract, when his 
opponents exclaim, ** What difference is there then be- 
tween Heathens and Christians, if the same prison awaits 
both ??® he does not attempt to discriminate between 
their respective abodes, but argues that only martyrs enter 

Paradise, and concludes: *¢ Recognize, therefore, a differ- 
ence in death between the heathen and believer, in case 
you lay down your life for God, . . . not in gentle fevers 
and in bed, but in tortures.??7 

The Underworld is treated in the first of these extracts 
as a prison, and in this light Tertullian seems to have been 
fond of identifying it with the prison mentioned by the 
Saviour, Matt. 5, 26. He alludes in one passage to the 
Second Coming of Christ, which Christians deemed close 
at hand, and to the change which, in accordance with 
1 Cor. 15, 52, the living were then to experience, and ex- 
claims, ** Who is there that will not desire, while yet in 
the flesh, to put on immortality, and [simply] to continue 
his life, ... so as not to experience [a confinement in] 
the Underworld, where even $ the last farthing will be 

exacted 2? 298 

Elsewhere he expresses an analogous idea, in a passage 
which is a curious specimen of interpretation, and morally 
irreconcilable with a SIMULTANEOUS resurrection.? ¢¢ If,?? 





® De Anima, c. 55, Opp. p. 353. C. 
» 7 De Anima, c. 55, p. 353. D. 

8 De Resurrect. c. 42, p. 410. B. 

® Tertullian held at times to but one simultaneous and general resur- 
rection of just and unjust. See Adv. Mare. 4, 34, quoted in § XXII. 5. 


100 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ Xx. 


says he, *¢ the mention of an adversary in the accompany- 
ing observation [* Agree with thine adversary? be under- 
stood of the Devil, you will be admonished to enter into 
that concord with him also, which results from fidelity to 
your agreement. For you have agreed to renounce him 
and his pomp and his angels. This was the agreement 
between you. Mutual friendship depends on your keep- 
ing your pledge, and not resuming afterwards any of his 
things which you have forsworn,— which you have re- 
turned to him, lest he present you to God the judge as a 
defrauder and transgressor of your agreement, ... and 
the judge deliver thee to the executing angel, and he 
commit thee to the Underworld prison, whence you shall 
not be dismissed until every trifling fault be discharged 
by a delay of the resurrection. What can be more suit- 
able than this meaning? What truer than this interpre- 
tation ? 7? 10 

The reader, probably, will have already inferred that 
thoughts of consignment to the Underworld were not 
peculiarly pleasing either to those — the mass of Chris- 
tians — whose theology exempted them from, or to those — 
—the few exceptions — whose theology subjected them 
to it. He will also be prepared to comprehend why one 
class of Catholics who were deterred by the fear of 





Elsewhere he teaches two resurrections, one of the just and another of 
the unjust. ‘The Devil having been banished meanwhile to the abyss, 
the prerogative of the first resurrection will be ordered from the throne. — 
Subsequently fire [for the general conflagration] having been supplied, 
the decree of the universal resurrection will be judicially announced 
from books.?? — De Resurrect. Carnis, c. 25, p. 397. B. On either of 
these two suppositions the good or the less faulty were, by “delay of the ~ 
resurrection,”’ to be detained in prison whilst the last farthing was being 
exacted from their companions. To avoid this, Tertullian invented a 
novel view, namely, that during the millennium * will be completed the 
resurrection of the saints who will rise earlier or later, according to 
[each one’s] merits.??— Adv. Mare. 3, 24, p. 499. C. According to this 
the resurrection of the just was not simultaneous, but a consecutive 
series of liberations from below. 

10 De Anima, c. 35, Opp. p. 338. C. D. 

ll See § XXII. 4. 





§ XXI.] LOCALITY OF PARADISE. 101 


heresy from sending Christians to heaven at death, might 
be deterred by popular feeling from sending them to the 
Underworld, and be left in perplexity as to how they 
should dispose of them. 





§XXI. THE LOCALITY OF PARADISE. 


1. Object of the Inquiry. 


THE unanimity of the early Christians in never turn- 
ing their eyes to the Underworld as a locality for Paradise 
will have some bearing on an argument yet to be offered 
for the genuineness of the Gospels. The frequency with 
which it was located in heaven may explain the fact, that 
that portion of the Catholics! who feared to send the 
righteous either to heaven or the Underworld at death 
did not in a body fall back upon Paradise as a substitute. 
The words of Paul (2 Cor. 12, 4) and common opinion 
gave such support to its heavenly locality, as to make 
them afraid of countenancing heresy if they sent believers 
thither before the resurrection. 

That Paradise was never located by the early Chris- 
tians in the Underworld, I should have deemed too ob- 
vious for argument, were not the contrary advanced in 
such a work as the Doctrinal History of Baumgarten- 
Crusius and Hase,? and partially countenanced by what 





1 See § XXII. 4. 

2 Baumgarten-Crusius, in his Text-Book of Doctrinal History (note 
on p. 1301), states **that Paradise and Heaven were constantly distin- 
guished [from each other], referring for his authority to **Cyril of Je- 
rusalem and others, as Origen.”? In his later work, the Compendium of 
Doctrinal History (Vol. 2, p. 388), he says, ** Paradise became gradually 
elevated in glory (verklaert) from a locality of the Underworld to a situa- 
tion in heaven.?? He wrote the text to this volume without the notes, 
which, with the exception of the first few pages, were subjoined after his 
death by Hase. The note of Hase on this last quotation is as follows: 


e 


102 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XXI. 


appears to have been an oversight or misconception of 
Huet and Muenscher? | 

In the Greek translation of Genesis (2, 8), the term 
‘Paradise corresponds to the English rendering garden 
and would naturally convey the idea of an earthly local- © 
ity. The language of Paul (2 Cor. 12, 4) suggests a heay- 





‘¢ Paradise, in the history of Church opinions, has experienced more 
wanderings than the Holy House of Loretto. According to Hebrew con- 
ceptions, a portion of the earth ; according to comparisons with Elysium, 
a constituent part of the Underworld ; gradually elevated into heaven ; 
then, especially by the mystics of the Middle Ages, completely called in 
question as a locality, and conceived of as a spiritual condition.?? — Vol. 
2, note C. on p. 388. Tertullian, it may be remarked, is the only writer 
of the first three centuries, unless some passage have escaped me, who 
compares Paradise with the Elysian Fields, and in the passage where this 
occurs he places it on earth, not in the Underworld. 

8 Huet in his Origeniana, Lib. 2, c. 11, Quest. 12, makes an imperfect 
quotation from Origen (In Numeros Homil. 26, 4, Opp. 2, p. 372. C.), 
and has misled himself and Muenscher into the opinion that Paradise is 
there confounded with Abraham’s bosom, the latter of which localities is 
commonly placed in the Underworld. In the passage in question Origen 
speaks of the soul at death as ** transferred to the next life (or world, 
aliud seculum), which is denominated either Abraham’s bosom... or 
Paradise, . . . or [by the titles of] any other places or mansions known 
perchance to God, through which the soul that trusts in God passes, until 
it comes to the river which makes glad the city of God.*? He is speaking, 
as it would seem, of distinct and successive localities. 

The identification of Paradise and Abraham’s bosom, thus erroneously 
attributed to Origen, is.by Beausobre, in his valuable History of Mani- 
cheism (Vol. 2, p. 112), ascribed to the Fathers without especial limi- 
tation, and without any reference to support it. Beausobre’s work is 
suggestive, and, on most points, richly supplied with references, but his 
statements are not to be received without examination. Whoever reads 
his remarks on the above-cited page concerning Hades, Tartarus, Para- 
dise, and Abraham’s bosom, will find errors enough in two or three sen- 
tences to evince the need of caution while perusing him. 

Tertullian, who in one work likens Paradise to the Elysian Fields (Apod. 
c. 47), in another (Adv. Marcion. 4, 34), both of which will hereafter be 
quoted, likens Abraham’s bosom to the same locality. In either case he 
means a locality outside of the Underworld. See the fourth division of 
this, and the fifth of the twenty-second section. 


. 





§ XxL] LOCALITY OF PARADISE. 103 


enly one Some Christians adopted the one theory, 
some the other, some were enabled by their theology to 
adopt both. Irenzus may have tried to stand on middle 
ground, and Tertullian was bold enough to defy all com- 
mon opinions when it suited his convenience. 


2. Twofold Theory. 


Origen, following out, perhaps, his system concerning 
the twofold sense of Scriptures, believed in a heavenly 
and an earthly Paradise. The former he located in the 
THIRD heaven, for he affirms that Paul heard in the third 
heaven what, according to his own quotation immediately 
preceding, he heard in Paradise.® In this Paradise Adam 
had originally been. ‘*The Lord God, says Origen, 
“ cast him out of Paradise and placed him on this earth 
over against the Paradise of delights, and this was the 
punishment of his fault which has certainly passed upon ° 
all men. For we are all formed in this place of humilia- 
tion [the earth], and valley of tears ; whether because all 
who have been born from Adam were in his loins and 
were ejected equally with himself, or whether in some in- 
explicable manner, known to God alone, each individual 


_ [Origen believed the pre-existence of souls] has been cast 


out and received condemnation.? ® 
Elsewhere he says: ** Who is so silly as to believe that 
God, like a human farmer, planted Paradise [a garden] in 





* The language of Paul implies a prior belief among the Jews, or 
among some of them, that Paradise was in heaven. Without this the 
Apostle would hardly have been understood. The same is corroborated, 
moreover, by one of Wetstein’s quotations appended to Luke 23, 43; 
*6 Chagiga, fol. 14. 2, § Four have entered Paradise by the hand of God.? 
Schol. * Not that they in fact ascended, but they seemed to themselves 
to ascend.’ ”? So, also, in the Sibylline Oracles, those who honor the 
true God are represented as ** inhabiting the Garden of Paradise.?? — 
Proem, 2, 48 (edit. of Alexandre, Proem, 86). 

5 Fragmenta, Opp. 4, p. 694. A. Compare Ad Martyr. 13, Opp. 1, p. 


282. E. 


6 Comment. in Rom. Lib. 5, 4, Opp. 4, p: 556. A. B. Compare p. 
546. A. 


104 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ xx1 


Eden towards the east, and-put a visible and perceptible 
tree of life in it, so that any one by eating of this tree 
should partake [of the knowledge] of good and evil? 7 

Of the earthly Paradise he says: *¢I think that who- 
ever departs this life in holiness will remain in a certain 
place on earth which the Scriptures call Paradise as in a 
place of instruction, and, if I may so express it, a school 
for souls, in which they are taught concerning all things 
that they have seen on earth, and receive certain hints 
also of the future. ... If any one is clean in heart, 
and particularly pure in mind and quick in the use of 
his faculties (exercitatior sensu), he will depart at an earlier 
day, and ascend without delay to the region of the air 
(aeris locum), and will [finally] arrive at the kingdom of 
the heavens, by passing through the mansions, if I may 
so express myself, of the several localities which the 
Greeks call spheres (that is, globes®), but which the di- 
vine Scripture names heavens. ... The Saviour alludes 
to these diverse localities when he says (John 14, 2), * Jn 
my Father's house are many mansions.? ? ® 

Marcion was no advocate of double senses in Scripture, 
yet he seems to have believed in a celestial and terrestrial 
Paradise. According to Tertullian, ** He treats every ques- 
tion concerning Paradise” ;1° but as Tertullian’s object 
was to ridicule rather than to state Marcion’s opinion, it 
is only by an eductive process that we can attain it. A 
preparatory remark or two may assist us in effecting this. 
The superterrestrial system of Marcion, unlike that of the 
Valentinians, did not extend beyond the heavens, of which 
he seems to have numbered but three, —a number prob- 
ably adopted from Paul’s words (2 Cor. 12, 4). In the 
third heaven — to which it will be remembered that Paul 
was caught up— dwelt the Supreme Deity and Christ. 
Tertullian quotes the opinion of Marcion, that from love 





7 De Principiis, 4, 2, 16, Opp. 1, p. 175. 

8 An addition, no doubt, of the Latin translator. 
® De Principiis, 2, 11, 6, Opp. 1, p. 106. F. A. B. 
10 Ady. Marcion. 5, 12, Opp. p. 600, B. 

11 See Appendix, Note C. 














of man Christ *¢ descended from the third heaven.” 
And again, after quoting his view that one who from the 
course of argument must be the Supreme Deity had his 
own world and his own heaven,” he adds, ** But we shall 
see about THAT THIRD HEAVEN when we come to discuss 
your copy of the Epistles.” 4% The heaven of the Creator 
was a lower one. According to the same writer, Marcion 
“maintains that he (Christ) in the fifteenth year of the 
reign of Tiberius descended into Capernaum, a city of 
Galilee, — of course from the heaven of the Creator, into 
which he had previously descended from his own, so that 
in proper order his descent ought first to have been de- 
scribed out of his own heaven into that of the Creator.?? 4 

The Creator’s Paradise must, according to Marcion, have 
been on earth, and the one to which Paul was carried — 
the Paradise of the Supreme Deity — must have been 
above the Creator, for Tertullian ridicules the unwilling- 
ness of Marcion to consider the Supreme Deity as using 
what belonged to the other. He asks ** whether (the 
Supreme) God could not have a Paradise of his own upon 
earth, without obtaining the use of the Creator’s [for the 
interview with Paul] by way of a favor?! A probable 





2 6Considera hominem . . . hoc opus dei nostri, quod tuus dominus 

. . adamavit, propter quem. . . de tertio ccelo descendere laboravit.” 
— Adv. Marcion. 1, 14, Opp. p. 489. D. 

18 Adv. Mare. 1, 15, Opp. p. 440. B. 

1 Adv. Marcion. 4, 7, Opp. pp. 506. D., 507. A. So, too, in another 
place: **If he (the Supreme Deity) has his own world below him and 
above the Creator, he must have made it in the vacant space between his 
feet and the Creator’s head.?? — Adv. Marc. 1, 15, p. 440. C. 

18 Marcion did not regard matter, which he deemed self-existent, as a 
suitable substance out of which to form anything very perfect. He main- 
tained, according to Theodoret, that the Creator *¢ from the purest of it 
had formed the heaven, from the remainder the four elements, and from 
the dregs Hades and Tartarus. And again, sifting out the purest of the 
earth, he prepared Paradise.”? — Theodoret, Hwret. Fabule, 1, 24, Opp. 
4, p. 158. Compare Philo (On Creation, c. 47; Paris edit. p. 21), as to 
the selection of earth by the Deity when he formed man. 

16 Ady. Marcion. 5, 12, p. 600. B. Tertullian in the same passage 
carries out his ridicule of this scrupulous non-appropriation of what 


106 UNDERWORLD MISSION. {§ XXI. 


conjecture is that Marcion located the heavenly Paradise 
in the third heaven. 


3. Paradise in Heaven. 


Tertullian represents opponents as maintaining the soul’s 
direct departure at death to Paradise, which he meets 
by the question, ** How will the soul be exhaled into 
heaven ”?!7 prior to the judgment? so that these oppo- 
nents must have placed Paradise in heaven. 

He himself sometimes places Paradise in heaven. That 
he at others locates it on the earth, is to be accounted for 
more probably by the supposition of inconsistency, than 
by that of his having held the twofold theo, In his 
work on Patience, he treats man as originally *¢ innocent, 
the friend of God his neighbor [so called, perhaps, because 
both lived in the same locality], and a colonist'* of Para- 
dise; but when he gave way to impatience he ceased to 
know God, and to have the capacity of enduring CELESTIAL 
things. Thenceforward man was given to the earth, and 
ejected from the sight of God.??!® 

According to Irenzeus, the Valentinians ** maintain that 
the seven heavens [of the Creator] are . . . angels, ... 
and Paradise, SINCE it is ABOVE the third heaven, they call 
The Fourth.?*° And it must no doubt be Valentinians 
to whom the Doctrina Orientalis alludes as holding that 
‘6 Man was created in Paradise, — the fourth heaven.?? 4 
Compare § Iv. note 6. Valentinians may by ‘the Fourth? 





belonged to the Creator, by alluding to Paul’s words, 2 Cor. 12, 7, 8: 
& There was given me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet 
me. . .. I besought the Lord thrice that it might depart from me.?? He 
remarks : *¢] wonder that your excellent Lord . . . should euff his own 
apostle by a messenger of the Creator’s Satan rather than by one of his 
own.?? Marcion, it will be remembered (see § XIV.), regarded Satan as 
an angel —a fallen one probably — of the Creator. 

17 De Anima, c. 55, p. 353. C. 

18 Tertullian regarded man, not as created, but as colonized in Paradise. 

19 De Patientia, c. 5, p. 162. A. B. 

20 Cont. Heres. 1, 5. 2 (1,1). Compare Tertul. ady. Valentin. c. 20, 
p- 298. C. 

21 ©. 51, Clem. Alex. Opp. p. 981. 





§ XxI.] LOCALITY OF PARADISE. 107 


have meant the fourth space, the one above the third 
heaven. 

The above extract from Irenzeus assumes that Paradise 
is ABOVE the third heaven. On the reason for assuming 
this, some light may be thrown by the manner in which 
Clement of Alexandria quotes Paul: **I know a Christian 
who was caught up into the third heaven, and THENCE 
into Paradise.?? 22 Clement believed, therefore, as it would 
seem, that Paradise was ABOVE the third heaven. 

Cyprian places Paradise in heaven, or identifies it with 
heaven. To avoid repetition, the reader is referred for his 
views to Note E of the Appendix. 


4. Paradise on Earth. 


Theophilus writes with his eye on the Old Testament 
narrative, which in his opinion clearly implies that Para- 
dise is on the earth. With two of the rivers which flowed 
out of it—the Tigris and Euphrates — he was well ac- 
quainted, seeing that they were near to (Antioch) where 
he lived (nostris regionibus vicini). Of the other two 
which watered the East, one, the Geon, flowed round the 
whole of Ethiopia, and was “said to appear in Egypt un- 
der the name of Nile.” Paradise was midway in beauty 
—not in locality, as Theophilus is sometimes mistaken 
to have said — between heaven and earth. Man after 
the resurrection was to be replaced in it. 

According to Methodius, ** Paradise, whence we were 
ejected in our first parent, is manifestly a spot selected 
from this earth as a pleasant resting-place, and set apart 
as a better habitation for the saints. Thence appear the 
Tigris and Euphrates and other rivers which issue from it, 
pouring their discharge of waters into our continent. For 
they do not plunge down from the heavens above, since 
the earth could not sustain such a mass of water rushing 
from on high.” Paul, according to this writer, intended 





22 Strom. 5, 80, p. 693. Comp. 2 Cor. 12, 2, 4. 

23 Ad Autol. 2,24, Justin. Opp. p. 366. B. C. D. 

2 Ad Autol. 2, 26, p. 367. D. E. 
_ % The extract is to be found in Epiphanius Heres. 64, 47, Opp. 1, 
p. 572. B. C. 


108 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XXI 


two distinct places when he spoke of being seized into 
the third heaven and into Paradise. The whole passage 
of Methodius was intended as an answer to Origen. 

Tertullian, in one work, as already seen, placed Para- 
dise in heaven. In his Apology, addressed to the Hea- 
thens, he borrowed its locality from their Elysian Fields. 
These, at a time when the shores of the Atlantic were 
an almost unknown region, had been placed by poetic 
fancy or by popular belief on its distant borders, or on 
the islands which it embosomed. Tertullian selected 
a spot equally untravelled by human foot for Para- 
dise. He placed it south of the torrid zone, which he 
treated as ‘a garden wall” to separate it “from the 
knowledge of the common world.?? * Perhaps this south- 
ern locality was suggested to him by the expression of 
Flaccus (see Appendix, Note F, foot-note 5), whi sol, 
‘where the sun is.? 

He had no thought, however, of permitting the infer- 
ence that he was borrowing from Heathens, but informs 
them that their idea of the Elysian Fields, with all their 
other approximations to truth, came to them from the | 
¢ Divine Literature. 27 


5. Statements less precisely worded. 


Irenzeus says that ** God planted Paradise in Eden to- 
wards the east”? ;*8 not on this earth, as it would seem; 
for Adam was * ejected thence into this world.” In his. 
opinion, taken, as he informs us, from the Presbyters,*®? 
that is, from some of the earlier Christians, it was one of 
three places, — Heaven, Paradise, and the Holy City, — 
to which, after the renovation of this world, men shall be 
distributed accordingly as they shall have borne fruit 
one hundred, sixty, or thirty fold. It was to Paradise, 
according to Presbyters,®! disciples of the Apostles, that 
the translated (Enoch and Elijah) had been taken. 





76 Apolog. c. 47, Opp. p. 42. B. 27 Tbid. p. 41. B. 

28 Cont. Heres. 5, 5, 1. 29 Tbid. 

8 Cont. Heres. 5, 36, 1; and Routh, Relig. Sac. Vol. 1, p. 10. 

51 Cont, Heres. 5, 5, 1; and Routh, Relig. Sac. Vol. 1, p. 58. (N. B. 
The Index refers to p. 55.) 





§ XxI] LOCALITY OF PARADISE. 109 


Tatian, speaking of the demons, or fallen angels, and 
men, says that the former were cast down from heaven, 
but men were expelled (éwpicOyoav) ** from the earth, not 
from this, but from a better and more finished one.?? 82 

‘The author of the Discussion between Archelaus and Manes 
says of Adam and Eve, “They whom (the Devil) de- 
ceived by the promise of their becoming Gods were 
afterwards cast out of Paradise.?? 8 The writer probably 
regarded Paradise as in heaven, the proper place for 
Adam and Eve, had they actually been what the Devil 
promised. | 

A Manichean is represented in the same work as ex- 
plaining Paradise to be the World, and the tree of life to 
be the knowledge of Jesus which is in the world ;** an 
allegorical interpretation which is also advanced by 
Clement of Alexandria, and which in the latter writer 
does not exclude the belief of a special locality called 
Paradise. 

According to Epiphanius, ** Hierax did not believe 
Paradise to be perceptible to the physical senses, aic@yrdv, 
which was also a folly of Origen. * 

The Clementine Homilies twice mention Paradise as 
_the original residence of Adam, without remark as to its 
- locality.®” | 

I have found no mention of it in the undoubted writ- 
ings of Justin Martyr, nor in those of Athenagoras, Her- 
mias, Arnobius, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, nor in 
the fragments collected by Routh, save the two citations 
of Presbyters by Irenzeus which are above given, and the 
quotations from the Discussion of Archelaus and Manes. 


6. Additional Remarks. 


PARADISE IN HEAVEN is at the present day re- 
garded as the intermediate abode of the righteous until 





_ ® Cont. Gree. Orat. c. 20, Justini Opp. p. 261. D. 
88 Routh, Relig. Sac. Vol. 5, p. 124. 
©, 10, Routh, Relig. Sac. Vol. 5, p. 62. 
8 Strom. 5, 11, pp. 689, 690. 
% Adv. Heres. 67, 2, Opp. 1, p. 711. B. 7 Hom. 3, 39, 16, 6. 


110 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XXL 


the resurrection. If any trace of this view can be 
found in the second and third centuries, it must be by 
inference, and that a very uncertain one, from the writ- 
ings either of Tertullian or Cyprian. The Gnostics and 
such of the Catholic Christians as agreed with them in 
sending departed souls immediately to heaven, had no 
idea of ever bringing them down again to be united to 
their bodies. On the other hand, that party among the 
Catholics who defended a physical and general resurrec- 
tion, — for the two seem to have gone together, — con- 
demned as a grievous heresy the belief of the soul’s direct 
ascent to heaven, which they regarded as overthrowing 
the resurrection. They seem to have thought that, if 
the soul once reached heaven and bliss, there was little 
likelihood of getting it back to earth. Tertullian would 
almost appear to have gone a step further, and to have 
concluded that, if people were hereafter to be raised OUT OF 
the earth, the only method of securing this desirable end 
was by keeping them UNDER it until the appointed time.” 

Cyprian sends the righteous at death to Paradise in 
heaven, but apparently with the intention that they 
should remain there permanently. If he twice alludes to 
a general resurrection, he nowhere connects it with the 
former idea. It was no doubt an inconsistency natural 
to one who was in a state of transition from the theology 
of his master, Tertullian, to that of the opposite school.” 

Tertullian twice concedes, not to the righteous, but to | 





88 In the Assembly’s Larger Catechism the Saviour’s words to the 
penitent thief, §* To-day shalt thow be with me in Paradise,” are quoted 
in proof that righteous souls at death enter upon ** communion with 
Christ in glory®? (answer to Question 85, and note appended thereto), 
which is explained by the answer to the next question to mean, that they 
are ** received into the highest (?) heavens, where they behold the face of 
God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.”? 
And in the answer to the succeeding question it is stated ** that at the 
last day . . . the selfsame bodies of the dead which were laid in the 
grave, being then united to their souls forever, shall be raised up by 
the power of Christ.” 

89 See the 5th division of § XXII. 

40 See his views in Note E of the Appendix. 





§ Xx1.] LOCALITY OF PARADISE. 111 


Martyrs only, an immediate transfer out of this life into 
Paradise. In one of these instances, and perhaps in the 
other, he intends Paradise in heaven. ** No one,” he says, 
*¢ on leaving the body, dwells immediately with the Lord, 
UNLESS he who by the prerogative of martyrdom shall 
go to Paradise instead of to the Underworld.” 4 And 
again, after identifying Paradise with the region under 
the altar,!2 ** where NO OTHER souls were shown to John 
save those of the Martyrs,?? he adds, ** The only key of 
Paradise is your blood.” #8 He lived in times of persecu- 
tion, when it was necessary to cheer men on to torture and 
death by better promises than that of an imprisonment in 
the Underworld. The Martyrs were already a kind of 
demigods, whose hopes of an immediate reward even HE 
dared not directly oppose. Both passages are, perhaps, 
unwilling concessions, which Tertullian would rather 
have withdrawn than developed. In the latter of them, 
and in close connection with what has been cited, he 
maintains that ** heaven is open to NO ONE while the 
earth remains,” and refers to a work no longer extant, 
which he had written concerning Paradise, in which, says 
he, ** we laid it down, that EVERY soul is sequestrated in 
the Underworld, until the day of the Lord.” 
~ To PARADISE ON EARTH Origen sent righteous 
souls, not as to their intermediate abode until the res- 
urrection, but as to the first step of that ladder which 
reached to God’s throne. Tertullian also, in the passage 
wherein he places the earthly Paradise south of the torrid 
zone, treats it as *¢a place of divine pleasantness destined 
for receiving the spirits of the saints.” Whether we 





41 De Resurrect. Carnis, c. 43, Opp. p. 411. B. C. 

#2 Rev. 6,9. I can offer conjecture only as to the cause of this iden- 
tification. Tertullian, who speaks of the communion as an offering (De 
Exhort. Cast. c. 7, Opp. p. 668. D.), may have treated the communion- 
table as an altar. The early Christians prayed with their faces to the 
east, and may not improbably have placed their communion-table at that 
end of their house of worship. If by analogy Tertullian regarded God’s 
altar as at the east, he may have reasoned that, since Paradise was in the 
east (Gen. 2, 8), it was the region under the altar. 

48 De Anima, c. 55, Opp. p. 353. C. D. 


112 UNDERWORLD MISSION, [§ XXIL 


suppose that this was to take place before or after the 
resurrection, it is not easy to be harmonized with the 
general theology of its writer. 





§ XXII. CHRISTIAN EXEMPTION FROM THE UNDER- 
WORLD. 


1. General Statement. 


In the second and third centuries, the Christians as a 
body deemed themselves exempt at death from the Un- 
derworld, and regarded this exemption as a privilege 
peculiarly their own. We have seen? that Tertullian, 
who alone and for a time defended an opposite view, 
represents his opponents as asking, ** What difference is 
there, then, between Heathens and Christians, if [as on 
your supposition] the same prison awaits both??? And 
Hermas has been quoted? as saying, ** Before a man re- 
ceives the name of the Son of God, he is destined to 
Death; but when he receives that seal, he is liberated 
from Death and delivered over to Life.” Nor can the 
connection leave any doubt that subjection to, and exemp- 
tion from, the Underworld were included in his use of the 
terms * death? and ‘life? Prior to Christ, all who died — 
all mankind save Enoch and Elijah — had, in the opinion 
of Christians, gone thither. Since Christ, none but them- 
selves escaped it. | 

Of these two statements, the former is sufficiently im- 
plied in the discussion with Marcion, and in the consequent 
one among Catholics. A limitation of it will be found in | 
the exception made by some of Origen’s opponents under 
§ X. in favor of Samuel and of God’s especial favorites ; 
and also in the Ascension of Isaiah, whose author makes 
the pseudo-Prophet see all the saints since Adam in the 
seventh heaven.? 





XX. 2 See § XIII. 
h. 9,7, 8 With which compare the belief of Micah and others 





: 


—. 


§ XXIL] EXEMPTION FROM THE UNDERWORLD. 113 


Such other limitations as the statements require will 
appear in the fifth and sixth divisions of this section, 
save such as may be called for by the Manicheeans, 
Verbally it would be true, that they also regarded Jews 
and Gentiles as doomed to the Underworld, the region of 
Death, and Christians as exempt therefrom. But with 
them there were only two localities, corresponding to 
heaven and hell; and though the term Hades (the Un- 
derworld) was undoubtedly interpreted by them of, though 
it was one of their terms for, the latter place, yet any ideas 
which might associate it closely with the common concep- 
tions of an Underworld seem to glimmer through or to be 
buried under such a predominance of other co ‘ceptions, 
that it might mislead rather than illustrate their system, 
were the prominence of a separate head assigned it. 

To avoid the need of repetition, I begin with the Mar- 
cionite Gnostics. 


2. The Marcionites. 


Tertullian, after giving his interpretation of the parable 
concerning the rich man and Lazarus, says: ** But Mar- 
cion forces a different interpr etation. He maintains, 
namely, that either place of reward under the Creator, 
whether of torment or of refreshment, is located in the 
Underworld for subjects of the Law and the Prophets ; 
but he explains the CELESTIAL gate and bosom, of Christ 
and his God.” 4 

Justin Martyr, including the Marcionites unquestion- 
ably, if indeed he do not refer exclusively to them, tells 
Trypho the Jew, “If you meet with some who are called 
Christians, who ‘do not believe this [the rebuilding of Je- 
rusalem and the millennium], but dare to calumniate the 
God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and who say that 





(c. 2, 9), in the heavenly ascent of the faithful.°? On the other hand, 


_ in the same chapter (9, 17) ** many of the saints”? are represented as to 


ascend hereafter with Jesus from the Underworld, so that it is not easy 
to say in how far such an inconsistent writer is to be regarded as an ex- 
ception to the common opinion. 


_ * Ady. Marcion. 4, 34, Opp. p. 559. C. 


114 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XXIL, 


there is no resurrection of the dead, but that AT DEATH 
THEIR SOULS ARE RECEIVED UP INTO HEAVEN, do not 
regard them as Christians.??® 


3. Lrberalist or Heterodox Catholtes. 


According to Origen, ** We who have come at the close 
of the ages have an advantage. Whatisit? If we de- 
part in virtue and goodness, not taking with us the bur- 
dens of sin, we also shall pass the flaming sword [at the 
gate of Paradise] and shall not descend into the regions 
where those awaited Christ who fell asleep before his 
coming.”? ® 

That Clement of Alexandria deemed exemption from the 
Underworld a necessary consequent upon Christian be- 
lief, and attainable through it alone, would seem evident 
from his course of argument in § IIT. 2. 

The Heathens may sometimes have been indignant that 
the Christians should maintain this exemption as pecul- 
larly theirs. If so, it may have given occasion to the 
following passage, which, however, is intelligible without 
such a stipposition. * How, ”? says Arnobius, 6 do we hurt 
you, or what injury do we either do to, or invoke upon 
you, by believing that the Omnipotent God will watch 
over us when we are about departing from our bodies, 
and, to use a common expression, will * VINDICATE?‘ us 


from the jaws of Orcus (the Underworld) ?”?® Elsewhere 





5 Dial. c. 80, Opp. p. 178. A. The passage will be given more at length 
in the Appendix, Note E. 

6 In Lib. Regum Homil. 2, Opp. 2, p. 498. B. C. 

7 This term ‘ vindicate? is used by the author of the Discussion between 
Archelaus and Manes — see § XIV.; also by Ireneus cont. Heres, 4, 8, 2 
(4, 19) — of the Liberation from Satan’s power which Christ wrought, and 
the Valentinians, who named some of their eons from ideas common 
among the Catholics, named one of them Kapmriorys, Carpistes, * The 
Vindicator? (Iren. 1, 2, 4), a legal term, as it would appear, for one who 
vindicated the right of a slave to liberty. 

8 Adv. Gentes, 2,53. Compare the statement of Arnobius, 2, 4, that 
‘¢Christ . . . had vindicated imprudentiam, the imprudence or inexpe- 
rience of miserable mortals from the worst robbers”? ; meaning, perhaps, 
from the demons. 


Ne 





§ XXII] EXEMPTION FROM THE UNDERWORLD. 115 


he has an exhortation in the following terms: “ Let us 
commit ourselves to God, nor allow that our incredulity 
should outweigh his name and power, lest . . . our last 
day should surprise us, and we be found in the jaws of 
our enemy, Death.» ® 

Cyprian, speaking of the readiness wherewith we should 
contemplate the approach of death, says: ** Let us embrace 
the day which assigns to each his abode, which, when we 
are taken thence (out of the world) and freed from earthly 
bonds, restores us to Paradise and the celestial kingdom.?? 
And again, in addressing a Heathen, he says: *¢ While life 


continues, no repentance is late... . With death upon 
us, we can pass to immortality. This favor Christ im- 
parts; . . . he opens the way of life; he leads us back to 


Paradise; he will lead us even to the celestial king- 
doms.”? ll 

The probability is, that nearly all the Catholics who 
belonged to the present class believed a direct ascent of 
the soul to heaven on its leaving the body. Tertullian, 
in his work on the Soul, quotes opponents, — evidently 
Heterodox Catholics, since neither Marcionite nor Theo- 
sophic Gnostics held such a view, — who maintained that 
Christians at death are destined to *¢ Paradise fin heaven 
‘as the connection implies], whither the Patriarchs and 
Prophets, the companions (appendices) of the Lord’s resur- 
rection, have already emigrated from the Underworld.” # 
And Irenzus, after complaining that ** some of those who 
are regarded as having been correct in their belief, overstep 
the order of promotion of the just, holding heretical 
views,” 8 argues, from the interval of three days between 
Christ's death and resurrection, that we do not rise at 
death. Hence it is fair to infer that those Catholics of 
whom he complains did believe a resurrection or ascent 
of the soul at death. This latter, and to him heretical 





9 Ady. Gentes, 2, 78. 

1 De Mortalitate, 26, Opp. p. 166. 
1 Ad Demet. 25, 26, Opp. p. 196. 
12 De Anima, c. 55, Opp. p. 353. C. 
18 Cont. Heres. 5, 31, 1. 


116 / UNDERWORLD MISSION. - [§ XxIr 


view, he connects with a denial of the fleshly resurrec- 
tion. 

Rejecting, as this class of Catholics did, a resurrection 
of the flesh, and therewith, as it would seem, the belief 
of a future and simultaneous or general resurrection, there 
was no generally acknowledged reason left for postponing 
the soul’s ascent to heaven. 


4. Orthodox Catholics. — First Class. 


These deemed it heretical to permit the entrance of 
souls into heaven prior to the resurrection. On the other 
hand, had they consigned them at their exit from the 
body to the Underworld, the realm of death, they might 
have appeared to rob Christianity of its life-giving charac- 
ter. Perplexity or uncertainty as to whither souls should 
go at death is apparent in their language; nor does one 
of them state a distinct locality as an intermediate abode 
for the righteous. 


Justin Martyr says, or makes the Jew his opponent say, © 


without dissent from himself: ** The souls of Practical 
Monotheists * abide SOMEWHERE in a better country, and 
the unjust and wicked in a worse, awaiting the time of 
judgment.” 





14 By Semisch (in his work on Justin, Vol. 2, p. 464), and by others, 
Justin is regarded as believing the intermediate state of Christian, as well 


as of other — the intermediate state of all — souls, to be in the Under- 


world, owing to the following passage, which has no apparent bearing on 
the subject. Justin (Dial. c. 99, p. 195. A.) speaks of those who put 
Christ to death, as ** not thinking that he was the Messiah, but [as] sup- 
posing that they would be able to kill him, and that he would remain 


like a common man in the Underworld.”” Grant that they did think so; 


and grant, moreover, what, though true, the passage by no means im- 
plies, that Justin himself regarded common souls (that is, human souls in 
distinction from the Messiah’s, which had something divine in it) as 
swallowed by the Underworld until the date of Christ’s death. This was, 
with slight limitation, the belief of all Christians. But it has no bear- 
ing on his or their belief as to the intermediate state of their own souls, 
or as to the privileges which Christ’s death had secured to them. Com- 
pare his views on this subject in § IX. and in Note B of the Appendix. 
15 Dial. c. 5, Opp. p. 107. D. 


ee oy ee 





§ XXII] | EXEMPTION FROM THE UNDERWORLD. 117 


According to Ireneus, Christian * souls will go away to 
a place (or, an invisible place) allotted them by God.?? 16 
The connection in which this passage is found renders it 
additionally striking. Irengeus is arguing against Catho- 
lic Christians who are tinctured with heretical views. 
He starts from the position, that, if the soul rises at 
death, Jesus, instead of awaiting the third day for his 
resurrection, would have departed when he expired on 
the cross. He maintains, reiterates, and returns to the 
supposed fact, that the Saviour abode until his resurrec- 
tion IN THE UNDERWORLD, that NO DISCIPLE IS ABOVE HIS 
MASTER, and hence, ** It is manifest that the souls of his 
disciples also. . . will go—*? Whither ?— to the Un- 
derworld? This is what the logical sequence impera- 
tively requires. But this is not the conclusion to which 
Irenzeus comes. His words are, ** The souls of his disci- 
ples, also, FOR WHOSE SAKE THE LORD DID THESE THINGS 
(hee operatus est), will go to an invisible place allotted 
them by God, and will remain there till the resurrec- 
tion.” If Irenzeus believed that Christian souls went 
to the Underworld, his ambiguity of language in the fore- 
going connection is inexplicable, unless, indeed, on the 
supposition that his view was unpopular, and that he 
feared to state it. It is more likely, however, that, as the 
Saviour *¢ did these things on account of his disciples,” 
Trenzeus was willing to send them to a somewhat better 
place than their master, not perceiving, or at least not 
acknowledging, that he thereby destroyed his whole pre- 
vious argument. In fact, that he did not send them to 
the Underworld is implied in the extracts from his writ- 
ings under §§ XVI. and XVIII, in one of which extracts 





16 Cont. Heres. 5, 31, 2. 

NM Cont. Heres. 5,31, 2. The passage in the text is from the old Latin 
translation of Ireneus. According to the Greek, as found in Damascenus, 
£6 Souls go to the place allotted by God, and there abide till the resurrec- 
tion.” Iam uncertain whether the whole difference arises from Dama- 
scenus having abridged Ireneus, or whether the word ‘invisible’ was 
added by the translator, that he might give a greater appearance of logic 
to the passage, by rendering the place of their abode more similar to 
Hades. 


118 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XXII. 


he assumes that the children of Adam had been rescued 
from Satan, and makes it the basis of his proof that 
Adam himself had been rescued. The rescue of Adam 
must have been from Satan in his character of Lord over 
the Underworld, so that the assumed premise implies 
the same for his children. 

The epistle ascribed to Barnabas, a production some- 
what earlier than Ireneus, says: “ There are two ways, 

. one of light and the other of darkness. ... The 
way of light is this. If any one wishes to journey to 
the *ALLOTTED PLACE, he will be zealous in his works. . 
You will love your Maker, you will honor him who RAN- 
SOMED YOU FROM DEATH, . . . you will not be joined to 
those who walk in the way of Death.” ® In both writers 
the Greek term for ‘the allotted place,’ rov dpiopévov tézov, 
is the same. The way of light could hardly be regarded 
as leading into the Underworld, nor could he that had 
been ransomed from Death be looked upon, if faithful, as 
becoming his prey. 

Polycarp, who, according to Eusebias; 19 was the teacher 
of Ireneus, speaks of sundry individuals, — martyrs ap- 
parently, — and of Paul and the other Apostles, as being 
*¢in the place which was due them from the Lord (or, 
with the Lord, — éderdpuevoy airots rérov rapa To kupio), 
with whom also they suffered.? 0 

There is a Hortatory Address to the Greeks, which by 





-18 Ce, 18, 19 (14, 3, 5, 6). 19 Hist. Ecc. 5, 5.» 

20 Epistle to the Philippians, ¢. 9 (3,8). The phraseology of Polycarp 
is slightly modified from that of Clement of Rome, a writer who lived 
before the Gnostic controversy, and who cannot well be classed with any 
of the Catholic parties that originated in that controversy. The difficulty 
of classifying him induces me to place him in this note. Alluding to the 
martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, he speaks of the former as having gone 
*6+o the place or GLORY which was due,” eis rov épeubuevov Torov Soéns, 
and of the latter as having gone to ** the holy place.?? — 1 Epist. to Cor. 
ce. 5 (3, 12, 15). Polycarp omits the words ‘of glory,’ possibly because 
going to glory at death was already, when he wrote, a heresy. The in- 
ference would be surer if rapa r@ xuplw be an erroneous emendation of 
mapa Tov kuptov to harmonize it with Clement. 


aS = Se Oo 


§ XXII] EXEMPTION FROM THE UNDERWORLD. 119 


some writers is attributed to Justin Martyr,7! and in it 
a passage occurs, which, though admitting difference of 
interpretation, seems to deserve a place here. The author 
represents to the Greeks, that *¢ they will not be acting 


contrary to the inclinations of. their ancestors, by now 


turning away from the errors which these held, since it is 
probable that those ancestors are at present groaning in 
the Underworld, repenting a too late repentance, to whom 
if it were possible from that place to show you what has 
happened to them since the close of life, you would know 
from what evils they desire to free you.” # 

Hermas regards Christian baptism as exempting men 
from the Underworld, and transferring them to the 
¢ Kingdom of God, or to $ Life, but without definite ex- 
planation as to the meaning of these terms. 

In Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus I have found 
nothing appropriate to this section. The first of these 
was a disciple of Justin Martyr, and when he wrote his 
work against the Greeks was Orthodox. Afterwards he 
became a Gnostic. 


5. Orthodox Catholics. — Second Class. 


- Under this division, which is intended to embrace such 
as consigned Christians to the Underworld, I can adduce 
but one known writer and (see Appendix, Note F) one 
fragment of uncertain authorship; yet, as the reasoning 
of the former was more logical than that of some in the 
first class, it is not impossible that he may have found 





- 21 The reader will find Bishop Kaye’s reasons for not regarding Justin 
as its author in his work on that Father, entitled, ** Some Account of the 
Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr, by John Bishop of Lincoln.” 
— Pp. 5-11. This work, though less copious than that of Semisch on the 
same Father, is more reliable in its statements. Otto’s Commentatio de 
Justini Martyris Scriptis et Doctrina, is in some respects preferable to 
either of the foregoing. An American edition of Bishop Kaye’s three 
works on Justin, Clement, and Tertullian would be a boon to American 
students of ecclesiastical history. 
22 Cohortat. ad Gracos, c. 35, Justini Opp. p. 32. B. C. 
_-*3 See § XIII. 


120 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XXII. 


persons to accept it, and I therefore classify him by 
himself. 

Tertullian loved controversial victory too well to shrink 
from the sequence of his argument, though it landed him- 
self in the Underworld; and he was too rugged to appre- 
ciate the fastidiousness which could desire better quarters 
than its Master. He copies the argument of Irenzus, 
that Christ went to the Underworld before ascending to 
heaven, and then breaks out with hearty earnestness: 
*¢'You must both believe that the Underworld is a sub- 
terranean region, and keep at arm’s-length those who 
proudly enough do not think the souls of the faithful 
meet subjects for the Underworld. Servants above their 
Lord, and disciples above their Master, they spurn the 
solace of an expected resurrection, if they are to await 
it in Abraham’s bosom.???6 

There was a difficulty, however, which Tertullian noticed 
in his confinement of all souls below. Christian exorcists 
sometimes wrung, as they thought, from an evil spirit, the 
confession that it was of human parentage. ‘** Some- 
times,” says Tertullian, “it affirms itself a gladiator or 
beast-fighter, as on other occasions a god, caring for noth- 
ing save to exclude this doctrine of ours, and hinder the 
belief that all souls are compelled into the Underworld, 





24 To place Tertullian among the Catholics and Orthodox requires a 
word of explanation, for in the latter part of his life he was a Montanist. 
His Montanism, however, did not affect his position as regarded already 
existing divisions. Judged by these, he is properly classified. And, 
indeed, the use which later writers made of his writings would indicate 
the same position for him. In the present instance he is but following 
out the argument of Ireneus to its legitimate results. His view is 
Utrra-Orthodoxy. To class him as a Montanist would create a need 
of explaining his position which is obviated by classing him as above. 
Neander, it may be remarked, places not only Tertullian, but Montanus © 
and Montanism, under the head, not of Heresies, but of the Catholic 
Church. 

25 Ireneus, from whom Tertullian copies this, was arguing against the 
Valentinians, who, it will be remembered, deemed this world the Under- 
world. 

26 De Anima, c. 55, Opp. p. 353. B. 





§ XXIL] | EXEMPTION FROM THE UNDERWORLD. 121 


so as to disturb the belief of a judgment and resurrec- 
tion.?? 27 

The connection of ideas in Tertullian’s mind appears 
to be this. The Judgment was a consequent upon the 
Resurrection. But people would not believe that the 
dead were yet to rise out of the ground, if they found 
that they had got out already. 

As for the account of Samuel, the demon had, accord- 
ing to this writer, assumed his appearance. ° Far be it 
from me,” says Tertullian, “to believe that the soul of 
any saint, to say nothing of a prophet, was brought out 
by a demon.” 78 

*‘ Therefore,” he represents his opponents as saying, 
“all souls are in the Underworld.” Just so,%? is his 
answer. ‘You may be willing or unwilling, [but] both 
punishments and refreshments are there; you have the 
rich man and Lazarus [as a proof of it].2?” 

From this doom, however, Tertullian had to make an 
exception, as has already appeared,®® — probably an un- 
willing one, — in favor of the Martyrs. And there is one 
passage in which he takes ground the reverse of the above. 
His fourth book against Marcion is an examination, in 
order, of the copy of Luke which the latter used, and of 
his interpretations. It would seem that Marcion took 
the parable concerning the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 
16, 19-31) as evidence that the Jewish Deity sent both 

ood and bad to the Underworld. Tertullian answers: 
‘The Underworld is one place, as I think, and Abraham’s 
bosom another; for it is said that there is a great gulf 
between those regions, such as prohibits passing from 
either side. Neither would the rich man have lifted up 
his eyes, and indeed from afar off! unless looking at 





27 De Anima, c. 57, p. 355. D. 

78 De Anima, c. 57, p. 356. A. Tertullian here uses like language to 
that of those who believed that Samuel had never been below. See on 
p- 44 their distrust of this narrative. 

29 De Anima, c. 58, p. 356. D. 

8 See § XXI. 6. 

_ 81 Origen’s second Homily on Kings was written, I suspect, while more 


122 UNDERWORLD MISSION. © [§ Xx. 


higher regions, . . . whence it is apparent to every sen- 
sible man who may have heard of the Elysian Fields, that 
there is a determined locality called Abraham’s bosom, 
intended to receive the souls of his children, even of 
Gentile extraction. . . . That region, therefore, I call 
Abraham’s bosom, which, though not a celestial one, is 
higher than the Underworld, and affords a temporary re- 
freshment to the souls of the just until the consummation 
of things shall bring to pass the resurrection of all with 
its plenitude of reward.” & 

Yet so far as lifting Abraham’s bosom out of the Bua 
world is concerned, the idea was probably a momentary 
impulse of opposition to Marcion, for a few lines further 
on Tertullian replaces it there, treating Abraham’s words 

— They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them 
—as spoken in the Underworld. 

Tertullian was a man of vehement imines fonder of 
consistency in the argument under hand than of a general 
accordance in his views, and fonder of an apparent contro- 
versial victory than of any consistency whatever. Precise 
dates cannot be affixed to his various writings, and itis 
difficult to distinguish between gradual changes which his 
opinions may have undergone, and hasty it pers ees: 
he soon forgot.* 


6. The Valentinians® 


Irenzeus, in a passage concerning the Valentinians, and 
perhaps concerning other Theosophic Gnostics, part of 


=> ee 4 





than one passage of Tertullian was fresh in his mind. He there argues 
that Abraham was (at the date of the occurrence) in the Underworld 
because the rich man saw him, ** for though ‘from afar off,? yet he saw 
him.”? — Opp. 2, p. 498. A. 

82 Adv. Marcion. 4, 34, Opp. p. 559. C. 

33 In De Idol. c. 18, and De Resurrect. c. 17, Abraham’s bosom is 
placed by Tertullian in the Underworld. 

8 For further remarks on this division of the subject, see Appendix, 
Note F. 

8 The reader will please recur, for explanation of some of the terms 
used in this division, to § 1V. 





——- or oe 





§ XXIL] | EXEMPTION FROM THE UNDERWORLD. 123 


which has already been quoted, exclaims, ** How shall: 
not they be confounded who say that the Lower Regions 
(or Underworld, J/nferos) are this world of ours, and that 
their inner man, leaving the body here, ascends to the 
super-celestial place. 

According to a passage of the Doctrina Orientalis, “* He 
who is born of his mother is introduced into Death and 
the World; but he who is born again of Christ is trans- 
ferred into life, into the Middle Space, Ogdoad [Plero- 
ma ?|36* and they die indeed to the World, but live to 
God, that death may be done away by their dying, and 
corruption by their rising again.?? 7 





86 Cont. Heres. 5, 31, 2. 86a Cp. § IV. note 27. 

8 ©. 80. Clem. Opp. p. 987. Another passage of the same document 
refers apparently to man’s condition prior to Christianity. ** According 
to the Valentinians,” it says, ** of the descendants of Adam, the Just, 
journeying through the creations (the realms of the Creator) were de- 
tained in *The Place? [probably above the seventh heaven where the 
Creator dwelt, comp. c. 59], but others in the creation of darkness, in 
the left hand [i. e. in the earthly places or elements], having a perception 
of the fire”? of Gehenna. — Doct. Orient. c. 37, p. 978. Gehenna ap- 
pears to have been a chasm into which a stream of fire (ep. Book of 


Enoch, 14, 19, Dan. 7, 10) poured from under the throne of * The Place,’ 
- but which had never become full. Possibly the time of its overflow may 


have been the period when a general conflagration was to be anticipated. 
Perhaps the * three left-hand places’ (Doct. Orient. c. 28) were the three 
elements (Doct. Orient. c. 48), earth, air, and water; fire (which some 
identified with spirit) not being reckoned as one. Tertullian, in giving the 
Valentinian view, — that the earthly and material were to perish, — adds 
@ quotation as if used by them, ** * because all flesh is grass,’ and the soul 
{except that of the Spiritual] is mortal in their estimation, unless saved 
by faith.” — Adv. Valentin. c. 32, p. 302. A. Under the term flesh, the 
Valentinians included the fleshly or material soul (Doct. Orient. c. 51), 
which they probably regarded as remaining in this world, and to be burnt 
up with it. The quotation from Is. 40, 6, 6 Ali flesh is grass,?? could 
readily be connected with Matt. 6, 30, ** Which to-day is, and to-morrow 
is cast into the oven.”? In this fate they included the rational soul which 
turned to earthly things. According to the Doctrina Orientalis, 
**concerning these two the Saviour says that we should * fear him who 
is able to destroy this soul and this psychical body in Gehenna,? ?? —C. 51, 


_ Clem. Opp. p. 981. Compare Matt. 10, 28. 


124 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XXII. 


Both these passages, it will be noticed, treat the transfer 
to the Middle Space as exemption after this life from the 
Underworld or from Death. 

The former gives the Valentinian view of what should 
happen to themselves, the Spiritual, at death, but the 
latter appears at least to include the fate of the Catholics 
whom they regarded as Psychical or rational, and who 
were destined also to pass at death, as it would seem, into 
the Middle Space. That some of them held this view 
concerning the Catholics or Psychical is slightly strength- 
ened, perhaps, by phraseology of Irenzeus. 

On the other hand, there is left to us an express state- 
ment of the Doctrina Orientalis, according to which ** the 
rest of the Spiritual [is] in the Lord’s, —[that is] the 
Eighth [or Middle Space] which is called the Lord's. 
. . . But the other FAITHFUL souls [the souls of the Cath- 
olics who are saved by faith, and not by their spiritual 
nature] remain with the Creator. But at the consumma- 
tion these also go up into the Middle Space. . . . Thence 





8 According to Irenzeus, at the consummation — when Wisdom and 
the Spiritual, her children, should pass into the Pleroma—the Creator 
was to ‘pass into the place of his mother, the Middle Space, and the 
souls of the Just should also REsT in the Middle Space.?? — Cont. Heres. 
1,7, 1. Tertullian, who seems to have copied his account in no small 
degree from Irenzeus, attributes to them the opinion, that, at this consum- 
mation, **the souls of the Just, that is, ours [i. e. the souls of Catholics 
or Psychical], will be TRANSMITTED to the Creator in the receptacle of the 
Middle Space.?? — Adv. Valentin. c. 32, Opp. p. 802. A. The wording of 
Ireneus might give color to the supposition that they were there already. 

389 “H pév ody Sv mrvevyuatixay dvdravots év kupiakh (év dydoddt, 7 kupiaky, 
dvoudgerat). c. 63. The explanatory remark in a parenthesis is probably 
by a later than the original writer. The association of ideas belonging 
to the Greek cannot easily be transferred to English. The Sabbath or 
seventh day was the Creator’s, the eighth day was the Lord’s, and also, 
in Valentinian phraseology, the Sabbath or seventh heaven was the Crea- 
tor’s, and § The Eighth,? meaning the eighth locality, for there were no 
more heavens, was a technical term for the Middle Space, which was also 
called 4 xupiaxj, *the Lord's,’ or *the Dominical,’? the common appella- 
tion (at least from the latter part of the second century onwards) of the 
Lord’s day. dvdmavois means stopping-place, temporary rest. 





Cu 


§ XXII]. EXEMPTION FROM THE UNDERWORLD. 12 


the Spiritual, divesting themselves of their souls... 
enter within the boundary [of the Pleroma].?? 44 

This being the case, if we take the narrowest Valentin- 
ian definition of the Underworld, as meaning the realm 
of the Cosmocrator or Devil, Christ’s mission procured 
for the rational or psychical Christians an exemption 
therefrom, since by their ‘faith? in Christ. they were 
saved, and translated temporarily to the Creator's place 
of rest, and subsequently to the Middle Space. 

If we so extend the meaning of their terms for the 
Underworld as to make it include the whole realm below 
twilight, the whole perishable creation of the Jewish 
Deity, then in this higher sense the Spiritual themselves 
had been exempted therefrom by Christ’s mission to this 
Underworld, since he first translated them to the illumi- 
nation and life of the Middle Space. 


7. The Clementine Homilies. 


The eccentric author of this religious fiction was not 
a Gnostic, for he regarded the Jewish and Christian dis- 
pensations as proceeding from the same source. He was 
scarcely a Catholic, for he regarded many passages of the 
' Old Testament as proceeding from the Devil, who had 
been permitted to interpolate them as a means of discrim- 





#9 According to the Valentinians, souls were not admitted into the 
Pleroma. Nothing but pure spirit entered there. They seem to have 
greatly troubled Irenzeus by their use of the Apostle’s words, ** Flesh 
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.?? — Cont. Heres. 5, 9, 1. 
Flesh and blood, they understood, as did many at least of the Catholics, 
to mean *body and soul.? Whether, however, by the kingdom of God 
they understood the Pleroma, I am not certain. It would accord with 
their system to understand that an infusion of ‘spiritual seed’ into the 
rational soul — an infusion which, even before Christ's time, came from a 
higher source than the Creator — was requisite to save it from Death. It 
could not gain admission even to the Creator's rest without it. And this 
seems to have been precisely the view of Irenzeus, except that he regarded 
this saving spirit as originating with the Creator, while the Valentinians 
deemed him incompetent to furnish it. See Irenzus, 5, 9, 1. 

41 Or **the Boundary,” i. e. the Pleroma. Doct. Orient. cc. 68, 64. 


126 UNDERWORLD MISSION. . [§ XXIL 


inating between good and evil men, of whom the former 
would not believe anything bad concerning God, even if 
they found it written.42 The work is much of it in a 
dialogue form, the author’s sentiments being put into the 
mouth of the Apostle Peter. 

The Apostle, addressing a lonely Heathen mother who 
had thought of suicide, says that suicides meet with a 
worse punishment in the Underworld. She replies, I 
wish I knew that souls really lived in the Underworld, 
and I should love, despite the punishment, to die, so that 
I might see, even for an hour, those that I long for, And 
Peter said, *I would like to know what grieves you, woman, 
For if you will tell me this, ... I will convince you that 
souls live in the Underworld? 4 A subsequent passage 
evinces that a better fate than this awaited the lovers of 
God. “Souls,” it says, “if they leave the body, and are 
found to have a desire for him (God), are borne into his 
bosom ; as in winter the undying vapors of the mountains, 
being drawn by the rays of the sun, are borne to him.” “ 
While we are elsewhere again informed that the wicked 
man goes to the Underworld.” 





42 Hom. 2, 38-3, 5, and elsewhere. Neander, who adopts the common 
view that the writer was an Ebionite, supposes that his object was ** to 
compose a work that might serve to reconcile those opposite (Judaizing 
and Gnostic) views, —a work of an apologistic and conciliatory tendency, 
—a noticeable phenomenon in the ferment of that chaotic period.” — 
Church History, Vol. 1, p. 353, Torrey’s trans. The hair of a genuine 
Ebionite —a thoroughly Jewish Christian — would have been likely to 
stand on end while reading such * conciliatory ? language as that of this 
author. 

#8 Hom. 12, 14; Cotel. Vol. 1, p. 711. Compare the confession attrib- 
uted to Simon Magus, Hom. 2, 30; Cotel. Vol. 1, p. 635. 

44 Hom. 17, 10, p. 740. 

45 Hom. 2, 13, p. 631, in which passage, unless I am mistaken, évrad0a 
means in this life, éxe? in that, or the future life. Not referring necessa- 
rily to Hades. 





§ xxuL] CAUSE OF THE EXEMPTION. 127 


§ XXIIL CHRIST'S UNDERWORLD MISSION THE CAUSE 
OF THE EXEMPTION. 


Ir might well be that Christians were e sometimes satis- 
fied to believe their own exemption from the regions of 
gloom, without seeking a specific agency which ‘effected 
it. Yet so far as the Christians of the second and third 
centuries have pointed out an agency, they have referred 
to Christ’s Underworld Mission. Tertullian represents 
the opponents of his ultra-orthodoxy as exclaiming, * But 
Christ went to the Underworld for this very purpose, — 
that we might nor go there.?! And Origen, using the 
term * salvation? so as to include, if not as identical with, 
exemption from, the Underworld, has already been quoted 
in a note on p. 24 as saying, that Christ *¢ for the salva- 
tion of the world descended even to the Lower Regions.” 
Nearly the whole history of the victory and ransom testi- 
fies to the prevalence of ‘a similar belief. 

There is, however, a separate question from the abers, 
which suggests itself here: Can a belief in Christ’s Un- 
_ derworld Mission have given rise to, or strengthened, the 
belief in this exemption of his followers? That it must 
have strengthened it would seem a moral certainty. 
Christians who attributed to the Saviour such effort and 
suffering for the purpose of rescuing THE DEPARTED from 
the Underworld could not readily have believed that he 
would leave his work half accomplished; that he would 
have overlooked THEMSELVES and permitted THEM to fall 
a prey to it and to their arch-enemy. A supposition, 
however, that the belief of this exemption grew out of 
the doctrine of Christ’s mission below, though not unnat- 
ural, is scarcely probable. The belief of exemption may 
have originated in the two following ways: 1. From an 
idea that Christianity, as a life-civing religion, must ex- 
empt its followers from the realms of Death. 2. From 
a blending together by the Christians of two conceptions, 





1 De Anima, c. 55, p. 353. B. 


128 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XXIV. 


one that they were God’s children, the other, that the 
children of a divine being were exempt from the Under- 
world.? 





§ XXIV. GENERAL REMARKS. 


A GERMAN writer, Dr. Pott, whose dissertation on 
Christ’s Descent to the Underworld? has a respectable 
place assigned it in references and quotations, thinks that 
all the various opinions on the subject prior to the fourth 
century were owing to interpretations of 1 Peter 3, 19 ;? 
and Hagenbach, in his Doctrinal History, appears to imply 
that they originated in expositions of the New Testament 
and of Psalm 16° Pearson, in his work on the Creed, 
says: ‘The ancients seem upon no other reason to have 
interpreted this place of St. Peter [1 Peter 3, 19] in that 
manner, but because other apocryphal writings led them 
to that interpretation,” and refers to the passage of Jere- 





2 Thus Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who may however have been 
influenced by Jewish views, represents the mother of Coriolanus as saying 
to her son, that if she can dissuade him from war against his native coun- 


try, immortal (or divine) glory will be her lot after this life, **and if any 
place receive human souls when freed from their bodies, that dark and . 


subterranean place in which the wicked (or evil demons, xaxodatuovas) 
are said to dwell shall not receive mine, nor yet shall the Lethean plains, 
but that pure ether above, IN WHICH, ACCORDING TO REPORT, DWELL THE 
CHILDREN OF THE GODs, experiencing a blessed and happy life.?? — Antig. 
Rom. 8, 52, Vol. 3, p. 1629, edit. Reiske. Compare also an extract from 
Ireneus in Note B of the Appendix to this essay. 

1 6 J), J. Pott, Excursus III. De Descensu Jesu Christi ad Inferos” ; 
in the ** Novum Testamentum,” edit. Koppiane, Vol. 9, pp. 281-340. 

2 Ibid. p. 291. 

8 The passages to which he refers in his note are, Acts 2, 27, 31; 
(Rom. 10, 6, 7, 8;) Eph. 4,9; 1 Peter 3, 19, 20 (connected with Psalm 
16, 10). See his Dogmengeschichte (2d edit.), Vol. 1,§ 69. Whether 
by inclosing two of the passages in parentheses he intended to attribute 
less weight to them, I do not know. 





io 1) ed tte. eee eee = 


§ XXIV. ] -GENERAL REMARKS. 129 


miah,* and that from the Shepherd of Hermas,® as the 
ones which misled them,® but without attempting to ac- 
count for the origin of these passages. 

The reasons assigned above seem insufficient. Of the 
passages adduced by Hagenbach, not more than two could 
be misinterpreted of a MISSION below, and not more than 
one—1 Peter 3, 19,20— would be likely to suggest it. 
To this passage the less influence can be attributed, since 
its appearance of favoring heresy must have precluded it 
from being much used. According to it, Christ preached 
to the wicked, precisely the subject of outcry against 
Marcion. Unless my examination has deceived me, no 
Father of the second or third century quotes the passage 
save Origen, who was not afraid to save even the demons. 
Clement of Alexandria, as we have already seen, found 
himself in one instance’? ’on the point of quoting it, but 
retreated out of it. If the doctrine of Christ's mission 
to the dead existed, as Pearson suggests, in a spurious 
prediction of Jeremiah, this implies that it was previ- 
ously held by a considerable number of Christians. Of 
events currently believed, a prediction might be forged. 
But a Christian forger would not have made Jeremiah 
predict that the Messiah woutp do what no one believed 


“that Jesus HAD done. Nor could Hermas have aided in 


diffusing such a view, since it is nowhere contained nor 
alluded to in his writings. 

The reasons which originated the doctrine of the-Un- 
denworld Mission, and caused _it to. strike.such.deep-root, 
Ww the following: 1. A wish to solve the 
Gizaation of what Christ did in the interval between his © 
death and resurrection: 2>"The need” of “accounting for 








the life-giving power of Christianity, or of explaining the 
victory which Christ had won for his followers over Death. 





et 


3. The effort to discover a dignified object for his suffer- 





* See § VIII. 

5 See close of § XIII. 

6 Exposit. of the Creed, by J. Pearson, Article 5 (pp. 866, 367 New 
York and Philadelphia edit. 1844). 

7 See § III. 2, and note 21 on p. 18. 


130 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ XXIV. 


ings.. 4. The desire of finding in the Old Testament’ 

proof-texts” against. the..Jews,..which_should_imply - his: 
ae 5. The benevolent purpose of saving the departed ~ 
without endangering a doctrine on-whieh 
tians found it convenient to lay great stress, namely, that 
no one could be saved without becoming ¢ a Christian. 

The Ransom, when viewed as a redemption of man 
from the Prince or rulers of evil by the exercise of power, 
might be placed’ under the second of these reasons, as 
almost a synonyme for the victory. When viewed, how- 
ever, as an indemnification to Satan, 1 doubt whether it 
were not rather a difficulty to the early Christians, than 
an idea likely to spread. They loved to-represent,Chris- 
tianity.as.a_triumphant religion, not as one whose author 
paid tribute to the powers of darkness. Some speculative 
minds may have been unable to find any other solution 
of the ransom (1 Peter 1, 18, 19) than such a tribute, but 
the mass would have preferred to leave it unexplained, 
rather than adopt such a view. 

In determining the date at which the doctrine of Christ’s 
mission below had already a deep hold on the popular 
mind, no little importance is to be attached to its recep- 
tion by the Gnostics. According to Clement of Alexan- 
dria, *¢ In the days of Hadrian [A. D. 117-138] arose the 











devisers of heresies, and continued till the age of the 


elder Antoninus [A. D. 138-161]. ... Marcion, belonging 


to the same period as they [as Basilides and Valentinus, | 


the earliest teachers of Alexandrine Gnosticism], became, 
as an old man, the companion of the later ones.??® 
~ Of these Gnostics, Marcion did:not believe that Christ 


/was"in any sense a man, or that he had anything human 
about him. He was a purely divine being, who had 

neither suffered nor-died,-and_there-was not the slightest. 
reason why such-a~being should go to the Underworld, 


unless he had a “mission to call him thes ~ Sheree 





8 Strom. 7, 106, Opp. p. 898. The passage, so far as translated above, 
needs no correction of the text. A clause of the paragraph which imme- 
diately follows, concerning Simon Magus, has puzzled critics. For med’ 
év, I would read ped” Gy. 


é t 
es a 


§ XXIV.] GENERAL REMARKS. 131 


troversy of Marcion with the Catholics shows that the 
idea of a mission below was already established, and the 
mere question at issue between them was as to who ac- 
cepted and were benefited by it. But it must have been 
VERY thoroughly established, one would think, in order to 
the reception of it by Marcion from his opponents, and 
the engrafting of it on his‘own system; for since he did 
not use the Epistle of Peter, he could not have found it 
in any part of the New Testament which he used, and 
must have adopted it from the Catholics. 

That the Valentinians must have needed ingenuity in 
remodelling the he doctrine so as to fit it into their system 
is evident. And since the descent to the Underworld was 
according to their views a descent to this earth, and a 
mission to its inhabitants, there would seem to have been 
little reason—why at the Saviour’s resurrection (rising 
again) a second mission, a mission to the departed; should 




















have been added, unless the Christian community out of 





which thes rung had attached importance thereto. 

Sta oe that, at the opening of the second 
century or the close of the first, the doctrine of Christ’s 
Underworld Mission, so far at least as regards the preach- 
ing .to and liberation of the departed, was not a widely 
‘ spread and deeply seated opinion among Christians. The 
evidence of its general reception is far stronger than if it 
were a mere doctrine of the creed, for articles of the creed 
have in nearly every instance been opinions which were 
NoT generally received,’ and to which the stronger party 
therefore gave a place in their confessions of faith as a 
means of defining their position. On the essential fea- 
tures of the present doctrine the Catholics and Heretics 
were of one mind. It was a point too well settled to 
admit dispute. 





® The reason which, in the fourth century, caused the insertion into, 





some of the pubite-and individual confessions of faith of the clause, § He i 
descended into the Un n¢ lerworld,’ d,” appears: to have been, that it was. re+ 


garded as IMPLYING a tenet openly denied by the Apollinarians, namely, 





that Christ hada human soul” Seé’King’s History of the Apostles’ 





Creed, pp. 243-968 (2d edit. Lond. 1703). For difficulties and perplexity 
_ oceasioned by this clause in modern times, see Appendix, Note G. 


f 


132 UNDERWORLD MISSION, [§ XXIV. 


A separate question from the foregoing might, however, 
be raised concerning the date to which we can trace back 
the belief in a redemption of the departed from Satan, 
Lord of the Lower Regions; that is, from the personified 
Death. The difficulty of determining positively the ear- 
liest date of such a view is partly owing to the twofold 
position of the Devil in Catholic theology, to his being 
both ruler of this and the lower world, ‘so that a deliver- 
ance from his power might imply a liberation from him, 
either in one, or in the other, or in both capacities. Yet 
the Ransom, as it appears in Ireneus, must have been 
given to Satan as Lord of the Lower Realms. It was only 
in that capacity that he could have received the soul of 
Jesus ; and as early as Irenzeus, the redemption of the de- 
parted from his power must have been believed. I am 
myself inclined to think that it existed among the East- 
ern or Greek Christians at a much earlier day.” The 





- 10 There is a singular inaccuracy of statement concerning Satan’s rule 
over the departed in several writers who assume, and are supposed to 
have, a knowledge of early Christian opinions. Semisch, after alluding 
to Justin’s opinion that * all souls of the Old Testament Just and Proph- 
ets had fallen into the hands of spirits,”? speaks of it as **a conception 
which, save the accordance with it by Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, 
recurs perhaps in not a single other Father,”? and then quotes to the fol- 
lowing effect, as a production of Anastasius, — who according to Dupin 
lived in the sixth century, —the Questions and Responses attributed to 


him, which according to Moreri and Dupin could not have been written — 


before the eleventh century. Quest. 112. ‘All souls of saints and 
sinners were under the power of the Devil until Christ, descending into 
the Underworld, said to those in bonds, * Go forth.??? — Semisch’s Jus- 
tin, Vol. 2, p. 465, note 3. There is certainly no scarcity of such state- 
ments in undoubted writings of well-known Fathers. Pott, though in 
a reasonable error as compared with the foregoing, makes a remarkable 
statement for one who was expressly treating of Christ’s descent to the 
Underworld. *If,?? says he, “any one in these centuries (the second 
and third) maintains that Christ descended to the Underworld for the 
purpose of liberating men from the rule of Death (Satan), Hippolytus is 
doubtless the only one.?? The passage alluded to he quotes from a work, 
De Antichristo, of questioned authorship. It speaks of Christ as ** preach- 
ing to the souls of the saints, conquering death by dying.”? — De Anti- 


re ii A 3 * af 2 7 4 . j 
ce EO Ne ae eS oe eee ee ern 


§ XXIV. | GENERAL.-REMARKS. 133 


phraseology of Justin Martyr and of the Valentinians is 
more easy of explanation, if we suppose such a view to 
have been already current in or before that time, than on 
any other supposition; and Justin’s phraseology is scarcely 
intelligible without it. Whether it prevailed as early and 
widely among Latin Christians may be doubted. Oriental 
conceptions of Satan would require some time in order to 
penetrate the Western World. 

In the foregoing pages, no separate investigation is de- 
voted to the Ebionite or Jewish Christians. A document 
called the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is the only 
relic attributed to a writer of this class, which from its 
size and nature would afford (if from a Christian hand) 
any hope of allusion to Christ's suffering. And it does 
contain two allusions to his descent and mission below.” 
But as I suppose the body of the work to be Jewish, not 
Christian; and one or both of these allusions to be the 
_ interpolations of a Catholic, I have not used it as proof 
of Ebionite opinions. There is, however, no reason to 
doubt that the Ebionites shared with the Catholics a 
belief in the Underworld Mission of their Master. They 
would equally with the latter, if not in a greater degree, 
have been exposed to the temptation of adopting it for 
the sake of enlarging their store of predictions from the 
Old Testament, concerning their Master’s suffering. 





christo, c. 26. See Pott’s Excursus de Desc. Jesu Christi ad Inferos, in 
Koppe’s Testament, Vol. 9, p. 291. Enough certainly of similar and 
stronger statements are to be found in the same period. 

11 6 Now, therefore, know that the Lord will execute judgment upon 
the sons of men, when the rocks being rent . . . [and the Underworld 
despoiled at the suffering of the Most High] unbelieving men shall per- 
severe in their iniquity.*? — 3 (Levi), 4, Grabe, Spicileg. Vol. 1, p. 160. 

*¢But in your portion [of the promised land] shall be the temple of 
God, and it shall be glorious among you ; and the twelve tribes shall be 
gathered there, and all nations [until the Most High shall send his sal- 
vation in the guardianship of his only begotten, .. . and coming up 
from the Underworld, he shall ascend into heaven .. .].2? 12 (Ben- 
jamin), 9, Grabe, Spicileg. Vol. 1, p. 250. The first and last of the clauses 
in brackets I suppose to be Christian interpolations. 


134 UNDERWORLD MISSION, [§ xxv. 


§ XXV. GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 


THOSE familiar with the theological questions of the 
past fifty years know that the Four Gospels now used 
among Christians have been seriously treated as not ex- 
isting in their present form before the end of the second 
or beginning of the third century, and that not a few 
have leaned to this conclusion. These histories of Christ 
have been regarded either as fabricated about that period 
from previously existing documents of uncertain credit, 
or as selected by the judgment or prejudice of Christians, 
from a multitude of earlier or contemporary fabrications, 
or as being in their present shape the result of gradual 
accretions during the first and second centuries. 

If the above views are correct, many would with justice 
think that little reliance could be placed on such docu- 
ments.!. But leaving out of sight the direct evidence to 
the contrary, which has frequently and in various ways 
been developed, there exists in the theology of the early 
Christians a mass of indirect and very convincing testi- 
mony, to overthrow any such positions, — testimony the 
less suspicious, because it is independent either of the 
veracity or the judgment of any or all of those who fur- 
nish it. ) 

The Gospels — whether adopted earlier or later — were 
used by the early Christians as a history of their Master's 
life and teachings, and, viewed in this light, as the basis 
of their own faith. Now it requires but a moderate ac-: 
quaintance with human nature to feel convinced that they 
would not fabricate documents AS THE BASIS OF THEIR 
FAITH, and yet leave their own faith out of them, or at 
least leave out those points in their faith which most in- 





1 A trustworthy compilation could of course be made from reliable 
documents in the second century, but that it should be adopted so widely 
and immediately by the Christians as to supersede the originals before 
the century closed, whilst no lisp touching the compiler or the originals 
has reached us, would be impossible. 





§ xxv.] GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 135 


terested them. Neither would they select_AS THE BASIS 
OF THEIR FAITH documents in which their favorite opinions 
nowhere appear, and reject those which contained them, 
as must have been the case if.our.Gospelswere-selected 











such A-BASIS OF FAITH grew by accretion, is it credible 
that not one alone, but successive hands, should have 
added thereto, and never have put their cherished pecul- 
jarities into it. 

To suppose a somewhat parallel case,— certainly not a 
stronger one, — let us imagine that each division of Prot- 
estants had formed or selected for itself a basis of faith, 
in which none of its peculiarities could be found; that 
the Heidelberg and Westminster Catechisms, the Confes- 
sion of Augsburg, or the Articles of Dordrecht and those 
of the Anglican Church, had offered no clue to the de- 
nominational tenets of their framers. Let us suppose 
that a BASIS OF MORALITY should for a century grow by 
accretion under the hands of pro- and anti-slavery par- 
ties, with no allusion to the subject of their dispute ; or 
that amidst the controversies on the person of Christ or 
the vicarious atonement, the Gospels should have grown 
in a similar way, with no mention of these doctrines. 
Yet, unless my study of early history have deceived me, 
the ageregate improbability of all these suppositions does 
not exceed that of the idea, that the Gospels could grow 
by accretion during a century and a half of various and 
fierce conflicts between the Christians and their opponents, 
or among Christians themselves, with no allusion to their 
controversies, or to the opinions developed by them. 

The argument from early Christian opinions may be 
divided into two branches. 1. From their belief concern- 
ing the history of Christ. 2. From their speculative views 
in theology, morality, and philosophy. 3. A third, and to 
some extent independent argument, might be based on 
their controversies. ‘ 

As regarded the first of these, the opinions of Christians 
coincided to a degree that evinces the prevalence among 
them of a history or histories which, if not identical with 
our Gospels, corresponded essentially with them. But 


;) 
; 


136 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ Xxv. 


/there was one supposed fact in Christ’s history not con- 
f\ tained in_our ‘Gospels, nor do they profess to have found 
it in theirs, and that was the mission to the Underworld. 





Now let the reader consider the extent to which their 
theological system, their * scheme of salvation, rested on 
this supposed fact, and ask himself whether, in a history 
of Christ formed by them, it would have been omitted.? 
They found abundant evidence, as they thought, that this 
mission had been predicted. But their histories of Christ, 
and, if they be supposed different, the histories which they 
have transmitted to us, afford no evidence that these pre- 





2 The Christian forgeries of the second and third centuries consisted 
of Pseudo-Jewish and Pseudo-Heathen, not, as has commonly been'sup- 
posed, of Pseudo-Apostolic documents. The latter would have been use- 
less in controversies with Jews and Heathens, and, unless forged in Paul’s 
name, would have had no weight with the Marcionites. In five of these 
forgeries a BRIEF sketch of Christ’s life is either historically narrated or 
prophetically foretold, and, brief though these sketches are, in each of 
them his life is closed by his mission to the Underworld. 1. The Ascension 
of Isaiah, a Pseudo-Jewish Prophecy, has been already quoted (pp. 53, 54). 
2. As also the Pseudo-Thaddeus (p. 73), the name of which must not mis- 
lead the reader into supposing it to be a forgery of Apostolic authority. It 
is an integral part of the correspondence opened by King Abgarus with 
Christ, which was forged, not for the sake of creating documents in the 
names of Christ and Thaddeus, but in the name of Abgarus, The Chris- 
tians wished to meet Heathen contempt for their religion by an instance. 
of respect towards it from a Heathen monarch whose indirect testimony to 
the miracles was a main object of the forgery. 3. The Sibylline Oracles, 
a collection of Pseudo-Heathen Prophecies, represent that Christ ** shall 
go to the house of Hades, announcing a resurrection to the dead,” Book 
1, lines 383, 384 (877, 378), p. 185, or **He shall come into Hades, an- 
nouncing hope to all,” Book 8, line 310, p. 748. For the date of these 
citations, see Appendix, Note H. 4. For the Acts of Pilate, a Pseudo- 
Heathen History of Christ; and 5. Pilate’s Report ; see Appendix, Note 
D. I ought perhaps to add, that I have not discovered a single instance 
in which any writer of the second or third century quotes the mission 
from any of these documents, or alludes to the fact that they mention it. 
The belief of this mission was far more widely and thoroughly established 
than the credit of these forgeries. Their testimony could not strengthen 
it. 





§ xxv.] GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 137 


dictions were ever fulfilled. In their Gospels and in ours, 
the interval between the Saviour’s death and resurrection 
is a blank, and on this blank they built no small portion 
of their faith. The crucifixion and death of Jesus, offen- 
sive both to Jews and Gentiles, and calling for explanation 
by Christians, were narrated in their Gospels as in ours, 
But THE EXPLANATION OF THE OFFENSIVE FACTS WAS LEFT 
ouT. The Saviour, instead of ascending to heaven with 
a host of the departed, appears both in their Gospels and 
ours as remaining on earth with his disciples. 

If the reader suppose that the Apostle Peter held and 
taught a ministry of his Master to the departed, then, 
though in a much weaker form, the foregoing argument 
would apply to the first century. It would then seem, 
that, though a distinguished Christian leader and Apostle 
had been willing to state such a view as his own, yet its 
absence from the Gospels bears evidence, in so far, that 
neither he nor any that accepted his view had tampered 
with the Master’s history, or put their own views into his 
mouth. 

Nor can the absence from the Gospels of any allusion 
to this ministry be accounted for by a difficulty of intro- 
ducing it. When the Saviour foretold his sufferings, 
‘death, and resurrection, and the disciples * understood 
none of these things” (Luke 18, 34), it would have been 
easy to make him give the explanation thereof, that he 
had a mission to fulfil in the Underworld. And when he 
conversed with them after his resurrection, it would have 
been perfectly in place to put into his mouth a statement 
of what he had accomplished.® 

But_the argument does not. stop here. In one of the | 

sistent-with the |, 
mission to the Underworld, a passage noticed ed by the early Ps 











8 If the reading adopted by Galleus and Opsopeus be correct, the 
author of one Sibylline fragment must have supposed the events below 
to be the subject of the Saviour’s conversation with some of his disciples, 
perhaps with those whom he accompanied to Emmaus. ‘He shall come 
to light again in three days, and shall manifest [the events of] his sleep 

_ to mortals.”? — Book 1, lines 385, 386, p. 185. 


138 UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ xxv. 


Christians. Origen, after quoting the Saviour’s words 


(Matt. 12, 40), ** 7'he Son of Man shall be three days and 


nights in the heart of the earth,” asks, ** How could he be 
three days and -nights-in-the~heart of the earth, who-at~ 
his departure was to be in the Paradise of God according 
to the statement (Luke 28, 43), * Zo-day thou shalt be with 
me in the Paradise of God??%* And adds: * This ex- 
pression has so troubled some by its appearance of incon- 
gruity, that they have ventured to suspect as an addition 
to the Gospel by interpolators, that passage, * To-day thou 
shalt be with me in the Paradise of God. But we say 
that, according to the simple (or literal) interpretation, he 
perhaps, before going into the so-called * heart of the earth? 
placed in the Paradise of God him who had said, * Remem- 
ber me when thou shalt come in thy kingdom. According, 
however, to the deeper (or spiritual) meaning, the phrase 
‘to-day? in the Scripture extends to the whole even of 
the existing age.??® 

The suspicion of interpolation was based on the incom- 
patibility of the passage with assumed facts, not upon its 
absence from manuscripts; nor does Origen— who had 
made textual criticism more a study than any contem- 
porary Christian or Heathen, and who was in no wise 
indisposed to give the various readings which he had dis- 
covered — allude to it as wanting in a single manuscript. 

But its disaccordance with existing theology had been 
perceived long before Origen’s time. Marcion might have 
made much use of the Saviour’s words to the penitent 
thief. Beset as he was on account of maintaining that 
souls went to heaven at death, there was no passage in 





* The words *of God? are not in our present copies of Luke, nor were 
they probably in Origen’s. Without having specially studied his cita- 
tions, I have noticed that the New Testament passage which forms in any 
case the particular subject of his comment is quoted in close accordance 
with our present editions, and seems to have been cited with a manu- 
script open before him. His quotations from other portions of Scripture, 
for the purpose of illustrating the subject in hand, appear to be made 
from memory. 

5 Comment. in Joannem, Tom. 32, 19, Opp. 4, p. 455. B. C, 


~ i © 
= eit h ae 
a a a 


§ Xxv.] GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 139 


his records or ours more apposite as an argument where- 
with to support himself. Yet Epiphanius informs us, “*He 
cut away the expression, * 70-day shalt thow be with me in 
Paradise? %*® The inference is a fair one, that the Under- 
world Mission outweighed in his mind any value which 
the passage possessed for him as a controversial argu- 
ment. 

The method of solving difficulties by erasures was 
peculiar to Marcion. Neither the Theosophic Gnostics 
nor Catholic Christians practised it. That the latter did 
not, receives no slight confirmation from the fact, that 
they retained and transmitted to us in their sacred records 
a passage which directly contradicted their own faith. 

To attempt unfolding the second class of arguments 
already alluded to for the genuineness of the Gospels, 
deducible from the speculative views of the early Chris- 
tians in theology, morality, and philosophy, and the third, 
from the controversies in which they were engaged, would 
be foreign to the purpose of this essay, and would require 
a volume, if not two, to do it justice. Arguments could 
be developed, some of them stronger than the preceding, 
or applicable to an earlier date, from, 1. The dissension 
between Jewish and Gentile Christians; 2. The contro- - 
_ versy between Christians and Jews; 3. Between Chris- 
tians and Gentiles; 4. Between Catholics and Gnostics ; 
from, 5. The conception of the Supreme Deity as neces- 
sarily devoid of name; 6. Jesus as the special Deity of 
the Old Testament; 7. The Pseudo-Deities of the Hea- 
thens ; 8. Idolatry ethically considered ; 9. The use made 
of the Old Testament predictions; 10. The use made of 
Pseudo-Heathen Prophecies; 11. The division into Faith- 
ful and Catechumens; 12. The customs and views con- 
cerning the Lord’s day; 13. And also concerning the 
Sabbath or Saturday; 14. The belief concerning Rome’s 
destruction; 15. And the burning up of the world; 
16. And Baptism; 17. And the Resurrection of the 
flesh ; 18. And Martyrdom; 19. And Anti-Christ , and 
many other points. 





_ § Epiphan. adv. Heres. 42, 11, 72, Opp. 1, p. 317 A. Compare p. 
- 847 C. D. 


140. UNDERWORLD MISSION. [§ Xxv. 


I can conceive no class of arguments more likely than 
these to convince a sceptical Christian or a truth-loving 
unbeliever, that our Gospels did not owe their origin to 
the opinions or to the controversial wants of the early 
Christians. In fact, had they been intended for service 
in the controversies against Jews or Gentiles, they would 
have purported to come from Jewish or Gentile, not from 
Christian hands.’ And though the Apostle John was re- 
garded by the Valentinians as one of the enlightened, yet 
the other three Evangelists were not well selected, if in- 
fluence with these Gnostics was desired, nor would all 
four in the eyes of Marcion have been equal to Paul. . 

I do not say that the foregoing arguments, if developed, 
would convince unbelievers of the supernatural character 
of Christianity, since many of them find an inherent 
difficulty in such a belief; but their development would 
materially reduce the number of questions which want 
of familiarity with early Christian history has left open, 
and might in many instances remove the main reasons for 
distrusting the Gospel narrative. I am not, of course, to 
be understood as maintaining that no interpolations what- 
ever exist in the Gospels. 





§ XXVI. CHURCH AUTHORITY. 


THE advocates of Church authority have been obliged 
to give up the position that individual Fathers were nearly 
or quite infallible, but they still regard unanimity of the 





7 The Gospels might satisfy truth-loving inquirers, but against non- 
Christian opponents their Christian authorship precluded use of their tes- 
timony. A Heathen would inevitably have said : ** You allege that Jesus 
performed miracles ; give me impartial evidence of the fact, statements 
not by individuals of your own body, but by outsiders.?? This condition 
of things prompted the forgery, as mentioned in note 2, of Jewish and 
Heathen, but not of Christian testimony. 





§ XXVI.] "CHURCH AUTHORITY. 141 


early Church — that is, of the Catholics — on a point of 
belief as settling its correctness, and the multitude of 
Christians who yet hold this view should prevent it from 
being regarded — as sometimes happens — with contemp- 
tucus indifference. That a considerable portion of men 
should be trammelled by error, ought not to be a matter of 
indifference, nor does it seem a fit subject for contempt. 
Let us test their position. 1. If we have evidence that 
the Catholics of the-second—and—third-centuries believed 
any proposition unanimously, we have evidence that,they 
believed the following: ** Jesus Christ at his death went 
on a Misston~to~the subterranean world.”~2> But the 
earth-is now known to be a solid globe;revelving in space. 
3. Their belief, therefore, of a subterranean world, and of 
the mission to it, was incorrect. 


—_—_ 
ee aera = 























1 One of the ablest and calmest of late Roman Catholic writers, J. A. 

Moehler, says in his Symbolism, ** Whoever takes the pains to study 
the writings of the holy Fathers may without much penetration discover, 
that, while agreeing perfectly on all ecclesiastical (?) dogmas, they yet 
expatiate most variously on the doctrines of Christian faith and morality. 
. . » While now all Catholics gladly profess the same dogmas with the 
_Fathers of the Church, the individual opinions, the mere human views 
_ of the latter, possess in their estimation no further value, but as they 
present reasonable grounds for acceptance, or as any peculiar affinity of 
mind may exist between one Father of the Church, and a Catholic of 
a subsequent age. . . . We will not and cannot believe otherwise than 
as our fathers have believed. But as to their [individual] peculiarities 
of opinion, we may adopt them or not as we please.?? — Sect. 42, pp. 
~ 869-371. 





? : 
2. 7 
My 
5 ee > 
a\ 
oe » 
, 
") 
} 
; 








” 








APPENDIX. 





NOTE A. 
JESUS! THE SPECIAL DEITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


Bestpes the humanitarian division of the early Christians, 
which included such as were commonly called Jewish Chris- 
tians, or Ebionites,? and a part — it is difficult to say precisely 
how large a part*—of Gentile Christians, there was another 





1 On the date of his deification see Indirect Testimony, pp. 192, 199. 
2 By Jewish Christians are not usually meant such as originated from 
Alexadrine Judaism, but those who retained Judaism as it existed in 
Palestine, and who were strenuous for the ceremonial law. Touching 
these, however, it is but fair to say, that the statement in the text has 
been disputed. As its proof would require more space than appropriate 

. here, I give simply my judgment concerning it. 

8 Justin admits to Trypho, *¢ There are SOME even of our race [that is, 
some Christians of Gentile extraction] who confess him (Jesus) to be the 
Messiah, but maintain that he was a human being of human parentage.” 
— Dial. c. 48. Cp. Judaism, Ch. XI. note 57, and Note B, footnote 59. 
rds the multitude which followed Jesus from Jericho as 
emblematic of the Gentile multitude ascending with him from earthly 
things (to the heavenly Jerusalem) ; the blind man by the wayside as 
typifying the miserable relic of Judaism ; and adds: **When you regard 
the faith, concerning the Saviour, of the Jews who believe on Jesus, some 
regarding him as the son of Joseph and Mary, others of Mary and the 
Holy Spirit, but without any belief in his divine nature, you will com- 
BY 8 how this blind man says, * Son of David, take pity on me? .. . 
and the multitude rebuked him . . . those from the Gentiles who, with 
few exceptions, have believed him to be born of a virgin, and rebuked 
the man that thought him born after the ordinary manner.?? —In Matt. 
Tom. 16, 12, Opp. 3, pp.7 33. A., 734. A. Compare Origen, Cont. Cels. 
5, 61; Opp. 1, p. 625 A. Origen does not say that the Gentile Chris- 
tians with few exceptions believe Christ’s divinity, and some expressions 
in his writings appear to se the reverse. See Forrest's History of the 
Trinity, pp. 35-37 (Meadville edit., pp. 48-50; Bost. edit. pp. 36-39). 
an says: **The simple, . . . who constitute THE LARGER PART 
OF BELIEVERS, . . . proclaim that two and ALREADY THREE gods are 


148% APPENDIX. [NOTE A. 


class from the time of Justin Martyr, who maintained that 
Jesus was the Deity who had appeared to the Patriarchs and 
Prophets and had talked to Moses from the bush.* They 
distinguished between the Supreme Deity, who was without 
a name,® and Jesus, who had a name. 

Justin tells the Gentiles, *¢ All the Jews even now teach, 
that the God without a name spoke to Moses, . . . who (the 
Jews) having it expressly stated in the records of Moses, that 
‘the ANGEL OF Gop spoke to Moses in a burning flame from the 
bush, and said, I am he who exists, the God of Abraham, and 
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,? maintain that it was 
the Father of all things and the Creator who said these things. 
Whence the prophetic spirit, reproving them, said, * Jsrael did 
not know me, and The People did not understand me.? And 
again Jesus, as we have already shown, said when among 





preached by us, but assume that they are worshippers of the one God.” 
— Adv. Prax. c. 3, Opp. p. 635. C. D. 

* In a previous edition the following surmise was appended to the 
above: **I am inclined to assign a somewhat earlier date ‘dias the age of 
Justin to this opinion, though my only reason for so doing is the strong 
suspicion that the Marcionite branch of Gnosticism was to a considerable 
extent but an offshoot from this identical view of the Catholics.” 

I am now convinced that Gnosticism was due to anti-Jewish feel- 
ing developed by the war under Hadrian. (See Judaism, Ch. XI. 
I. 1.) Justin’s limited deification of Jesus in his Dialogue is but a 
revised version (see Indirect Testimony, pn. 190-192) of his earlier 
effort in his Apology to parry objections then urged against the Old 
Testament, 

5 6*No one can affix a name to the ineffable Deity. But if any one 


should dare to say that he has a name, such a man is crazy with an in-. 


curable madness.?? — Justin, Apol. 1, 61, p. 80. C. The Father of all 
things, being unbegotten, has no name, for whoever is called by a name 
has an older [than himself] who gave him his name.?? — Apol. 2, 6, p. 
92. C. See also Apol. 2, 12, 13, pp. 96. E., 97. E. Do not seek the 
name of God. God is his name. Nie are requisite when a multitude 
of individuals are to be distinguished by appropriate appellations. To 
God who is alone the name of ( 

c. 18, pp. 89, 90. The same may be found in Cyprian, De Idol. Van. 
p- 15. ‘*Gifts [or bribes] are not to be offered to the God who has no 
name.”? — Tatian, c. 4, p. 247. B. **The soul... names him Gop, 
using this name alone as appropriate to the true God.?? — Tertul. Apol. 
c. 17, p. 18. B. The Seventh Heaven, where dwells He who is Nor 
NAMED [I follow the Latin translation of Laurence, which he made 
more literal than his English one] and his Elect, whose name has not 
[in Isaiah’s time] been revealed.?? — Ascension of Isaiah, ch. 8, 7. 
Trismegistus, a Christian document attributed to Mercury, also treats 
the Supreme Being as without name, See Lactant. 1, 6; Paris edit. 
Vol. 1, col. 139, 140. 


God is everything.”? — Minuc. Felix, — 


/ 


a yi! pa . 
Ce eg ee 


NOTE A.] CHRIST THE OLD TESTAMENT DEITY. 147 


them, * Vo one has known the Father except the Son (nor the 
Son except the Father), and those to whom the Son shall reveal 
him.? 99° 

And in his Dialogue with Trypho he alleges, that ** in the 
book of Exodus Moses mystically proclaims and we compre- 
hend that Jesus was the name of that God whose name, the 
Scripture says, was not communicated to Abraham nor to 
Jacob. It is stated thus: * Zhe Lord said to Moses, Say to 
this People, Lo, I send my messenger before thee, that he may 
guard thee in the way; that he may lead thee into the land which 
I have prepared for thee. Attend to him, .. . for MY NAME 
Is UPON Him.? Who therefore led your fathers into the land ? 
You clearly know that it was he who is called by this name 
Jesus (Joshua’). . . . But since (ei) you know this, you will 
recognize also that Jesus was the name of him who said to 
Moses, * My name shall be upon him.? . . . He was also called 
Israel.??® ; 

The object of this note is simply to enable the reader to 
apprehend easily the foregoing idea, and I therefore omit ex- 
tracts from other Fathers, of which a multitude to the same 
purport could be adduced. The reader will find some of 
them in Mr. Norton’s Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. 2, 
pp. 247-253 (2d edit. pp. 250-256; abridged edit. pp. 
300 — 304). 

It may be added, that, though a PERSONAL APPEARANCE of 
the pre-existent Logos To THE GENTILES was maintained by 
none, yet, in opposition to the Gentile claim of superior an- 
tiquity for Heathenism, Justin affirms that Socrates and other 
philosophers participated in, and lived according to, the Logos,” 
_ go that, according to this view, anything good in Heathen 
philosophy was not prior to Christianity, but a part of it, being 
derived from Christ. Justin, in support of this idea, and to 
save the superior antiquity of Christianity, claims these men 
as Christians. Clement of Alexandria, from a more generous 
motive, takes the same ground concerning the origin of Greek 
Philosophy.” 





6 Apol. 1, 63, p. 81. A. C. D. 

7 Jesus and Joshua are the same name in the Greek. 

8 Dialog. c. 75, p. 172. B. C. 

® Apol. 1, 46; 2, 10, Opp. pp. 71. B., 95. D. 

10 [bid. j 

11 See Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of 
Alexandria, by John [Kaye], Bishop of Lincoln, pp. 190 - 193, 202, 203. 


148 4 APPENDIX, ~ - [NOTE B. 


NOTE B1 


MORTALITY AND IMMORTALITY. — LIFE AND DEATH, 


Tue Fathers used the terms Life and Death as antitheses 
of each other, and employed the latter as do moderns to des- 
ignate the separation of the soul from the body, or to express 
a morally lost condition, or as an appellation of Satan.? Some 
of the Catholics and Heretics believed an Annihilation of the 
wicked or earthly. How far they designated this by the term 
Death I do not know. Aside from these meanings, the 
term Death, in the period covered by this essay, designated 
a residence in or consignment to the Underworld, as must 
already be evident, and Life, its antithesis, an exemption 
therefrom. The former seems to have been regarded as the 
lot of Human Nature or Mortality, the latter of Divine or 
Immortal Natures. | 

In order, however, to understand some of the early Chris- 
tian theology on this point, it must be remembered that a 
distinction was frequently made by the ancients between Soul 
and Spirit. The latter was the essence of immortal beings, 
the former was human.’ Whether Adam were originally im- 





From the former of these references the following citation of Clement is 
made : ** Who, then, was their teacher ? (i. e. the teacher of the Greeks). 
The First Begotten, the Counsellor of God, who foreknew all things. 
He is the teacher of all created beings; he in various ways from the 
foundation of the world has instructed man, and leads him to. perfec- 
tion.”? And from the latter the following : *¢ Philosophy may be reason- — 
ably supposed to have been given by Divine Providence as a preparation 
for perfection through Christ. . . . They who deny that Philosophy 
comes from God, ‘go near to question his particular Providence. . . . 
They who affirm that Philosophy was given by the Devil, make him more 
benevolent than Divine Providence to good men among the Greeks. 
. . . The Law was given to the Jews, Philosophy to the Greeks, until 
the advent of Christ.’ 

1 Referred to on pp. 15, 32, 54, 56, 69, 71, 88, 96, 116, 128. 

2 See extract from Origen in § xrv. note 6. 

8 This distinction existed independently of any idea of personal char- 
acter as expressed by the term spiritual. Thus, in the Book of Enoch 
the Deity is represented as saying to the fallen Angels, ** You from the 
beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and 
not subject to death forever; . . . being spiritual, your dwelling is in 
heaven” (ch. 15, 6, 7); and as adding concerning the Giants, the off- 
spring of these angels and of their earthly brides, ** Now, the Giants 
who have been born of Spirit and of Flesh shall be called upon earth 





NOTE B.] MORTALITY AND IMMORTALITY. 149 


mortal, and became human through his fall; or whether he 
were created neither immortal nor human, but capable of be- 
coming either ;* or whether he were human at his creation ; 
—yet in any case as a human being he could not become, 
according to the views of some among the Fathers, a denizen 
- of heaven. His doom as a mortal was the Underworld. 

Thus, in passages already cited, Hermas informs us that 
the departed who were in the Underworld * could not other- 
wise enter the kingdom of God, than by laying aside the 
mortality of their former life.2?® Arnobius speaks of the 
departed whom Christ aided, as having laid aside the * lot 
of Mortality ;® which, by a comparison with the extract 
from his writings in § XXII. 3, would seem to mean that they 
had been rescued ** from the jaws of Orcus.?? Tertullian 
treats Christ as having, ** BECAUSE HE WAS A MAN, . . . gone 
through the form of human death in the Underworld.”?7 And 
Origen, we have seen, treated the detention of the departed 
in the Underworld as the ** condition affixed [before Christ’s 
time] to dying.??® . 3 

If HUMAN nature was necessarily the prey of the Under- 
world, it was no unnatural conception that this nature must 
be changed, that it must become immortal or divine before 





Evil Spirits. . . . Evil sprrirs shall proceed from their flesh [i. e. spirits, 
not souls, shall be disengaged from their bodies at death], because they 
were created from above.”? —Ch. 15, 3 

The distinction between soul and spirit appears, perhaps, in the phra- 
seology of the Apocalypse, which mentions (6,9) **the souLs of them 
that were slain,?? and again (20, 4), **the souLs of them that were be- 
headed”? ; but (1, 4) **the seven sprriIts®? before God’s throne; an ex- 
pression similar to which occurs in 3, 1, 4, 5, 5,6. See also, in note 8 
on p. 88, Origen’s query as to God and the angels having souls. 

* Theophilus advances this view: ** But some one will say to us, 
* Was man naturally mortal?? By no means. * What then: immortal?? 
No. But some one will say, *Was he nothing at all?? I do not say 
that. He was neither mortal nor immortal by nature. For if he had 
originally been made immortal, he would have been made a god; but 
if mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. He was made 
therefore neither immortal nor mortal, but, as we said above, capable of 
becoming either. . . . Observing the command of God, he would receive 
immortality as a reward and become a god; but if he should turn to the 
works of death, being disobedient to God, he would be the cause of his 
own death.”? — Ad Autol. 2, 27, Justin, Opp. p. 368. A. B. 

5 See p. 56. 

& See p. 32. 

7 See note on pp. 30, 31. 

8 See p. 62. 


150 APPENDIX. [NOTE B, 


entering heaven. This conception was actually entertained, 
and the method of creating this change was, according to 
some, the infusion into human nature of Christ’s divine or 
spiritual nature. 

Irenzus says: ** Those who deem Christ the son of Joseph, 
. . . not being [according to their own principles] commingled 
with the Logos of God the Father, . . . are debtors of [or 
due to] Death, . . . to whom the Logos speaks, narrating his 
own office of kindness, * J said, Ye are,all gods and sons of the 
Most High [if ye will accept my gift], but ye die like men.? 
He says these things to such as do not accept the gift of 
adoption (or sonship), . . . DEPRIVING MAN OF THE ASCENT TO 
Gop,® . . . for to this purpose the Logos became man, that 
man, by being commingled with the Logos, and receiving the 
adoption, should become a Son of God. For we could no 
otherwise receive incorruptibility and immortality than by 
being united to incorruptibility and immortality.?? ® 

Elsewhere he asks, ** How could man pass (or be changed) 
into [a] god, unless God passed into man???” 

Elsewhere, again, Irenzeus quotes from Ps. 50, 1, ** The God 
of gods, the Lord spoke,” and after asking, ** But of what 
gods? answers, ** Of those to whom he says, * J said ye are 
gods, and all of you sons of the Most High? ; that is, of those 
who have received the favor ‘of adoption through which we 
ery, Abba, Father.? 9 * 

A fragment preserved under the name of Justin Martyr, 
but ‘the authorship of which is doubtful, states that, ** When 
God originally formed man, he made his nature dependent on 
his own choice, determining the experiment by a single com- 
mand. For he made him, in case he observed this command, 
the recipient of an immortal lot, but if he transgressed it, of 
the reverse. Man being thus formed, and turning his face 
immediately towards transgression, received corruptibility into 
his nature. But corruptibility being in our nature, it was 
necessary that he who wished to save us should cause this 
substance to disappear, which occasioned corruption. . But 
this could not otherwise take place unless that which by its 
nature was life (i. e. possessed of an inherent incorruptibility 





® On the connection between Sonship of God and ascent to heaven, 
compare page 128. 

10 Cont. Heres. 3, 19, 1(3, 21). Compare 4, 38, 4 (4, 75). 

11 Cont. Heres. 4, 33, 4 (4, 59). 

12 Cont. Heres. 3, 6, 1 (3, 6). 





NOTE B.] MORTALITY AND IMMORTALITY. 151 


or immortality) should be united to that which had received 
into itself corruptibility, thus causing the corruptibility to 
disappear, and preserving as immortal thereafter that which 
had received it. On this account it. was necessary for the, 
Logos to come in a body, that he might free us from the cor- 
ruptibility of death in our nature.??® 

The idea of Irenzus and of the foregoing writer appears to 
be, that a divine or spiritual and immortal nature must first 
be mingled with a human one, and we then, by, becoming 
participants of this double nature, participate in the. divine 
nature which it contains. An inherently immortal substance 
is thus mingled with our perishable souls, , 

Among various reasons which create doubt as to Justin 
having written the above fragment, is the different view. which 
he advances in his Dialogue with Trypho. He there quotes 
at some length from the eighty-second Psalm, J have said ye 
are gods,” etc., and states that his object is to show * that 
the Holy Spirit reproaches men, that being made, like God, 
IMPASSIBLE AND IMMORTAL, PROVIDED THEY OBSERVE HIS COM- 
MANDMENTS, and being honored by him in that he calls them 
his Sons, even these likewise, being assimilated to Adam and 
Eve, WORK OUT DEATH to themselves. Let the interpretation 
of the Psalm be as you wish, and it is nevertheless manifest 
that they were honorably destined to be gods, and to the ability 
of becoming Sons of the Most High, and of their own choice 
they prefer to be judged and condemned as were Adam. and 
Eve.”?* These remarks follow a statement that the Jews 
were somewhat disturbed at hearing Justin claim that *¢ we 
are the true children of God, who observe the commands of 
Christ.?? | 

According to this, Adam’s descendants were, equally with 
himself, born immortal, and destined to remain so if they ob- 
served God’s commands. An examination of Justin’s views 
in § IX., including note 12 on p. 42, will render it probable 
that Justin deemed the Mosaic Law an insufficient means of 
righteousness, and that the power of Christianity alone en- 
abled a man to be so observant of God’s commands as that he 
could escape death. By death in the above extract, as in that 
from Justin under § IX., it seems difficult to understand any- 

thing save subjection to the Underworld or its ruler. 





18 Justini Opera, pp. 597, 598. 
% Dialog. c. 124, pp. 217. E., 218. A. 
© Dialog. c, 123, p. 217. B. 


152 APPENDIX. [NOTE ©. 


I suspect that the capacity of communicating immortality 
was one sense — though, unless the Latin translator have 
added his own explanation, it was not the only sense — in- 
tended by the author of the Adumbrations on Peter as an 
attribute of God’s Word or Logos. He quotes ch. 1, 23, 
“¢ Regenerated, not with corruptible sep,” and says: *¢ The 
soul, therefore, which is poured out at the same time with 
[the destruction of] the body, is, as some think, corruptible 
(1, 25), * but the word of the Lord (the Logos or Life-giving 
spirit) endures forever.? 2916 

The Valentinians based their theory of salvation on the 
distinction of soul and spirit. According to them, only the 
Spiritual, and such from among the Psychical (Men of Soul) 
as were fitted to receive a seed of the Spirit into them, were 
saved. 





NOTE C. 


HEAVENS. 


MentTIoN has been made in the foregoing pages of Marcion, 
as holding to a system of three heavens, while others believed 
in seven. Suidas, as quoted by Suicer, says: *¢* There are 
two heavens, that which was created at the same time with 
the earth (Gen. 1, 1), and the one which was subsequently 
appointed as a means of separating the waters (Gen. 1, 6), — 
which (God) also called the firmament.??? | 

The Ascension of Isaiah, though recognizing seven heavens,? 
makes in some places the same distinction as above, between 
the firmament and the (first) heaven,’ though it elsewhere 
confounds them.* 





16 Clementis, Opp. p. 1006, lines 26-80. This idea of the soul, we are 
told in the Philosophumena, or Refutatio Omnium Heeresium, 
was entertained by Epicurus. He is there represented as holding that 
**the souls of men perish at the same time with their bodies, in like man- 
ner as they are born with them,. . . for they are blood.?? —1, 22, p. 28, 
Miller’s edition. . 

1 Suicer on Ovpavés, 2, D. 2, Vol. 2, p. 523. 

2 The system of seven heavens appears in the Testamenta XII. Patri- 
arch. Levi 3; Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraph. Vet. Testamenti, 1, pp. 
546 - 548. 

8 Ch. 7, 9, 13; 10, 27, 29. # Ch. 11, 23, 25. 





NOTE D.] THE ACTS OF PILATE. 153 


_ A passage from Theodoret, also quoted in Suicer, says: 
*¢ He who disbelieves a second heaven goes out of the right 
way, and he who endeavors to number more follows fables, 
despising the teaching of the Divine Spirit.??® 

Marcion may have assumed the two heavens as the highest 
number mentioned in the Old Testament, and have rested in 
the idea of a third for the Supreme Deity, as being mentioned 
by Paul. Paul, however, must have spoken with reference 
to already existing ideas. And it may either be, that already 
in his day some of the Jews had supposed a third heaven 
as requisite for the residence of Jehovah, or, which is more 
probable, that the fixed stars, the sun, and moon were supposed 
to occupy three distinct heavens, in the highest of which dwelt 
the Supreme Being. The Talmudical opinions collected by 
Wetstein and Schoettgen, though recognizing the systems of 
two and seven heavens, do not recognize a system of three. 
The system of seven heavens or spheres was doubtless derived 
from the idea of the sun, moon, and five then known planets 
moving in as many spheres. Cicero, copying apparently from a 
monotheistic source, locates the Supreme Being in, or identifies 
him with, the heaven of the fixed stars, below which revolve 
the seven heavens occupied consecutively by Saturn, Jupiter, 
Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and, lowest of all, the Moon.® 





NOTE D! 


THE ACTS OF PILATE. 


_ Justin Martyr mentions a document called the Acts of 
Pilate,? and manuscripts have come down to.us bearing this 
title. The work in its original shape — for some of the 





5 Suicer as above. Theodoret would seem from the above to have 
approved, as well as quoted, an interpretation of the passage (2 Cor. 
12, 2), “caught up to the third heaven,” according to which it meant 
caught up a third of the way to heaven. His quotation of it is given by 
Suicer, Vol. 2, p. 522. C. 1. c. 

6 Cicero, De Repub. 6, 10; or Somn. Seip. ec. 4. 

‘1 Referred to on pp. 36, 136. See translation and fuller account of 
these Acts in Indirect Testimony, Note A. 

2 Justin, Apol, 1, 35, 48, pp. 65. D., 72. A. 


154 APPENDIX. — [NOTE D. 


manuscripts are much interpolated — appears to have been 
one of those Pseudo-Heathen documents which Christian con- 
troversialists were tempted to forge, because they felt the 
need of Heathen testimony while challenging Heathen assent 
to’ their statements. The document, in what I deem its origi- 
nal shape,® professed to be a public record of the trial of Jesus 
before Pilate, in which many of those whom Jesus had cured 
came forward to testify as to what he had done for them. 
The Christians, in appealing to this, could say, We are not 
appealing to ouR documents, but to yours. If you will not 
believe us, believe your own public records. The record, 
however, must, by most Christians, unless by those of Syrian 
origin, have been deemed doubtful, since in the second and 
third centuries Justin alone mentions it, nor does he make 
any copious use of it. About the close of the third century 
some publicity must have been given to it by Christians who 
may themselves have mistaken it for genuine. This at least 
affords the only plausible explanation of the fact, that about 
that time the Heathens— thinking, perhaps, that two could 
play at the same game— met it by a counter forgery under 
the same title, which was taught to the children in the schools; 
so that, according to Eusebius, **the boys had nothing but 
Jesus and Pilate in their mouths the whole day long.??* 
Besides the above, there is ** Pilate’s Report,?? or an official 
letter sent by Pilate to Tiberius concerning Jesus,® and not 
essentially different in object or character from the above. 
Both are Pseudo-Heathen authorities for points in Christ’s 


history which we may infer from these forgeries were con- — 





8 The original of the Acts of Pilate I suppose to be best yy hehe 
in some but not in all respects by the Manuscripts which Thilo designates 
as Cod. Venet. (the Venetian Manuscript) and Paris D; or rather by the 
former and the first portion of the latter, terminating at the close of the 
twelfth chapter. Even these manuscripts are interpolated. A. critical 
edition of them would shed considerable light on the earliest hiscory, 
after the Apostolic age, of the controversy between Christians and 
Heathens. Much confusion has resulted from the custom of treating 
this, and other Pseudo-Heathen or Pseudo-Jewish documents, under the 
head of Apocryphal Gospels and Epistles. They are thus made to appear 


as forgeries of Christian authorities, —of documents by Christ and by’ 
his Apostles or followers, whereas this was the very character which their 
forgers intended them Not to bear. The Acts of Pilate are usually pub- 


lished under the title, ** Gospel of Nicodemus.” 

* Hist. Ecc. 9, 5, 7. 

5 This is probably alluded to by Tertullian in his Apology, e. 21, 
p. 22. C. 





NOTE D.] THE ACTS OF PILATE. 155 


troverted by the Heathens, and both mention the release of 
the departed.® 

Between these two documents, and blended with the former, 
as published by Thilo, appear two others. Their contents 
induce the supposition that they were intended for controversy 
with the Jews rather than the Gentiles, since the investiga- 
tions reported in them concerning the facts of Christ’s resur- 
rection and ascension are conducted by Jews. In one of 
them, a weak production, Joseph of Arimathea is prominent. 
The other, printed in continuation of it by Thilo, is a narra- 
tive, in the heroic strain, of Christ’s deeds in the Underworld, 
and is probably later in date than any of the others. Ac- 
cording to it, the Simeon who took Jesus in his arms was, with 
two sons and brothers, among the number raised at Christ’s 
resurrection. They are cited before the chief priests, and 
narrate what took place below. At midnight, they narrate, 
a light shone into the darkness below, and was recognized by 
Abraham, the Patriarchs; and Prophets, as the light of the 
great enlightenment. Notwithstanding the anachronism, it 
refers probably to the light at the Saviour’s birth. Luke 2, 9. 
Then appeared one like an ascetic of the desert, who an- 
nounced himself as John, and said that he had baptized the 
Son of God. Seth, in answer to the request of Adam, tells 
the reasons for hoping that their liberation is at hand, and 
-while they rejoice at it, Satan comes to make an announce- 
ment to Hades (the Underworld) which is here personified. 
$¢ All-devouring, insatiable Hades, listen to my words,” is the 





6 The Venetian manuscript of the Acts of Pilate, and that marked 
Paris D, indicate that the document at one time, or in one form, con- 
cluded (with omission of the doxology) as follows: **Then the Lord 
arose. He awoke Adam and all the Prophets whom the Devil had in 
his power; and he awoke also all who believed on him.” See Thilo, 
Cod, Apoc. Nov. Test. p. 606. 

According to Pilate’s report, after especial mention of Abraham, the 
twelve patriarchs, and others, **there appeared in the air an unnumbered 
multitude of angels, crying, *The crucified Christ has risen, being a 
God,’ and a voice was heard as the sound of thunder, saying, * Glory to 
God in the highest, and on earth peace and good-will to men. Come up 
out of the Giaderworld, ye who are enslaved in its subterranean regions.? 
. . . And the rocks were rent, and great chasms were formed in the 
earth, . . . and many bodies of the sleeping dead arose, to the number 
of five hundred [a misapplication probably of 1 Cor. 15, ¢]. And the 
whole multitude walked about and praised God, saying, *The Lord our 
God, who is risen from the dead, made all our dead alive, and, plunder- 
ing the Underworld, destroyed it.’ 9? — Thilo, p. 811. 


156 APPENDIX. [NOTE B. 


beginning of his address; and he tells of what Jesus did on 
earth, and that by his (Satan’s) promptings he had been put 
to death. Hades is dismayed, fearing the coming prisoner to 
be the same who rescued Lazarus. While they yet speak, a 
voice as of thunder is heard, saying, ** Lift your gates, ye rulers, 
and be ye lifted up, ye eternal doors.??" Hades directs every- 
thing to be barred, and tells Satan to contend against the 
Lord. 

The saints, secure of their triumph, insult their oppressor : 
‘¢ All-devouring, insatiable Hades, open, that the King of glory 
may enter ;?? and while they talk to each other, the voice 
from without is again heard, ** Lift up your gates? Hades 
seeks to gain time by the question, ** Who is the King of 
glory 298 An answer comes, ** Zhe Lord, powerful and 
mighty; the Lord, mighty in battle??;® and simultaneously 
with it the gates are crushed in, and Satan is bound and de- 
livered to Hades for safe keeping till the second coming of 
the Lord. Hades finds grievous fault with Satan for the 
ruin occasioned by bringing such a prisoner. The saints on ~ 
ascending to Paradise find Enoch and Elijah, as also the 
penitent thief, who had been sent thither by Jesus, and had 
been requested by the Archangel Michael to wait a little until 
Adam and the saints should come also, 





NOTE E. 


RESURRECTION OF FLESH.! 


Mention has been made of an Orthodox and a Heterodox 
or Liberalist party among the Catholics. The chief point 
of division between them was the Resurrection of the Flesh,? 
which the former maintained in a literal and sometimes in a 
gross shape ;? and which the latter denied. It may also be 





7 Ps. 24, 7. 8 Ps. 24, 8. 9 Tbid. 

1 See $ III. and § XXII. 8, 4, 5. 

2 Compare citations on this subject in § XVIII. 2, and Indirect Testi- 
mony, Ch. III., note 15. Jewish views may be found in Judaism, pp. 
45, 427 n., and Stoic ones in the same work, pp. 44 n., 57 n. 

3 6¢Since we learn from Isaiah (66, z ) that the bodies of transgressors, 
remaining imperishable, shall be devoured by worms and incessant fire, 
so as to be a spectacle to ail flesh.?? — Justin, Dialog. c. 130, p. 223. A. 





NOTE E.] 





remarked that the Orthodox generally held and seem to have 
laid stress upon a Millennium or Reign of Christ for a thou- 
sand years on earth,—a doctrine not found among their 
opponents.* | 

Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Methodius wrote treatises de- 
fending a resurrection of the flesh. Fragments of a work in 
defence of the same are extant under the name of Justin, and 
are supposed by some to have been part of his work against 
heresies. Tatian, his disciple, held this view while a Catholic, 
but afterwards became a Gnostic. Polycarp, Theophilus, and 
Irenzeus, the Ignatian Epistles, and that ascribed to Barnabas, 
have either argued or expressed themselves in favor of the 
same view, or have so expressed themselves on subjects which 
were in their day cognate to it, that no reasonable doubt exists 
as to their having held it. 

The opposite view, owing to the opprobrium resulting from 
its connection with the heresies of the day, was less likely to 
receive a free expression. It must, however, have been ex- 
tensively held among Catholics. Irenzus, as already seen, 
complains that **some of those who are regarded as having 
been correct in their belief (i. e. some Catholics) overstep the 
order of promotion of the just, . . . holding heretical views ; 
for the heretics, . . . not accepting the salvation of their 
flesh, . . . say that they ascend above the heavens.??® 
-Athenagoras informs us that he wrote his treatise in defence 
of the resurrection, because **in this matter we have found 
some altogether incredulous, and others doubtful ; and even 
among the acceptants of the first principles [on which the 
argument for the resurrection rests], some who are equally 
at a loss with the doubtful; which last, indeed, is the most 
unreasonable of all, . . . since they have in the [conceded] 
facts no starting-point for their disbelief.2?® Tertullian tells 
us that the resurrection of the flesh ** is less readily received 
than the oneness of the Deity,??’? by which latter phrase he 





* Among the Liberalists also a tendency appears towards the doctrines 
of Annihilation and Restoration, and towards the consideration of all 
unishment by the Deity as reformatory, whilst the Orthodox advance, 
in general, harsher views of future punishment. An attempt to define 
the relative positions of the two parties on these subjects would require 
more space Daan can here be devoted to it, and a more thorough exam- 
ination than I have yet bestowed upon it. 
5 Cont. Heres. 5, 31. 1. 
6 De Resurrect. c. 1, Justini, Opp. p. 316. A. 
7 De Resurrect. Carnis, c. 2, p. 380. B. Compare De Resurrect. Carn. 


158 /.) ‘APPENDIX. (NOTE E. 


means the identity of the Deity from whom the Mosaic and 
Christian revelations proceeded. There is no need, he informs 
us in the same connection, of arguing the salvation of the 
soul, since none deny it. te Tig 
Justin Martyr appears to struggle with his own conscience 
in attempting to suppress the fact, of which, considering the 
above statements, he cannot have been ignorant, that many 
of the Catholics did not believe a physical resurrection, or, 
which was the same thing in the phraseology of the Ortho- 
dox party, did not believe THE resurrection. He puts into the 
mouth of the Jew the following question: *¢ Tell me, do you 
truly confess that this place of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, and 
Your People to be assembled and to rejoice with the Messiah, 
... or is it in order to get the better of us in this debate that 
you are willing to confess this ?”? 
Hereto he responds: **[ am not so mean, O Trypho, as to 
speak differently from what I think. I confessed to you 
formerly that I and many others think thus, . . . but I indi- 
cated to you also that many Christians of pure and pious 
belief do not acknowledge this. For as to those who are 
called Christians, but who are atheists and wicked heretics, 
I showed you that they teach wholly blasphemous and athe- 
istical and senseless doctrines. And that you may under- 
stand that I am not saying this to you only, I will write out 
our discussion as well as I am able in a book in which I shall 
insert myself as confessing what I now confess to you. For 
Ido not prefer to follow men or human teachings, rather than 
God and his teachings. For if you meet with some who are 


called Christians and do not confess this, but who dare to - 


blaspheme the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the 
God of Jacob, who say also that there is no resurrection of 
the dead, but that at death their souls are received into 
heaven, —do not regard them as Christians. . . . But I and 





c. 63, p. 429 D. God . . . in the last days . . . gave new life to the 
struggling, /aborantem, faith in the fleshly resurrection.”? 

8 This profession of Justin is adduced by Semisch as a proof (!) of his 
intense love of truth. See Semisch’s Justin der Maertyrer, Vol. 1, pp. 
194, 195. May I caution the reader not to err, on the other hand, by 
assuming as a fair criterion of Justin’s whole character this unworthy 
equivocation touching the prevalence among Catholics of a view very 
offensive to the Jews, and to that party of Catholics whereto he himself 
belonged. Intense party feeling, whether political, theological, or moral, 
is fruitful in producing such suppression of truth even by otherwise good 
men. 


i 
7 - La. a hd 
ee a ne 





NOTE E.] RESURRECTION OF FLESH. 159 


any other Christians who think correctly ON ALL POINTS un- 
derstand that there is to be a resurrection of the flesh and 
[a residence of] a thousand years in Jerusalem, when rebuilt 
and adorned and enlarged.’ ® 

The natural impression caused by the foregoing is, that a 
denial of: ** the resurrection,’ or of *¢ the fleshly resurrection,”? 
was, like the blasphemy against the God of Abraham, a Gnos- 
tic peculiarity. Justin’s intention certainly was to convey the 
idea that he had been perfectly frank. He acknowledges a dis- 
belief of the millennium as prevailing among some Catholics, 
and leaves it to be inferred that, had he known a further dis- 
belief on their part, he would have owned it. By avoiding to 
make the Jew question him concerning the resurrection, he 
avoids the need of a direct answer as to whether any Catholics 
did or did not reject it in the only form in which a thorough 
Jew would have recognized it. The tirade against the Gnostics 
is intended to withdraw attention from the disbelief of the 
Catholics. 
_ Origen had little respect for the fleshly ideas of the Ortho- 
dox. He says: *¢ It behooves every lover of truth to apply his 
mind to these things, and contend concerning the resurrection, 
that he may save [on the one hand] the tradition of the elders, 
and may guard [on the other] against falling into the silly 
conceptions of imbecile men, which are both impossible and 
unworthy of the Deity.?? ® 

Hierax and» his party evidently belonged to the Catholics, 
from the chief body of whom they varied mainly by developing 
the idea of Melchisedek as a type of Christ, and by pushing 
to an extreme, or putting into practice, the common Catholic 
admiration of celibacy.  Epiphanius, heresy-hunter though 
he is, appears to regard him as orthodox touching the Trinity, 
but informs us that he did not believe ** a fleshly resurrection 
of the dead, but [simply] a resurrection of the dead, a resur- 
rection of souls.?? ™ 

Clement of Alexandria, in his criticisms on the Gnostics, 
forbears any condemnation of their disbelief in a physical 
resurrection; and in speaking of the punishments in the 
Underworld as salutary and leading to conversion, he adds: 
*¢ And this, since souls when freed from their bodies can see 





® C. 80, pp. 177, 178. 
10 Selecta in Psalmos, Opp. 2. p. 534. A. 
11 Epiphan. Heres. 67, 2, Opp. 1, p. 711., B. 


160 APPENDIX. [NOTE BE. 


more Clearly, even if they be darkened by suffering, because 
they are no longer joined to the flesh.??"? Other passages con- 
firm the idea that he rejected the Orthodox view. 

In the Philosophumena (10, 34) the future body is called 
*¢ immortal and incorruptible,?? which, though not specific, can 
scarcely mean a fleshly one. 

Arnobius acknowledges to the Heathen that he believes a 
resurrection, yet with the significant addition, that it is * un- 
derstood by you differently from what we hold”; and he 
elsewhere treats the heathen persecutions as the means of 
liberation to the Christians on whom they fell ; the body being 
but a prison, and the destruction—roof and wall—of that 
prison being the means of introducing light to, and removing 
blindness from, the prisoner within.“ 

Cyprian is the only writer of any note whose position might 
be a matter of doubt. In treating of man’s death, he appears 
to regard it as a transfer to his permanent, not to his tempo- 
rary home. ** Let us embrace,?? he says, **the day which 
assigns to each his abode; which when we are taken thence 
[that is, out of the world] restores us to Paradise and the 
Celestial Kingdom. Who when in a foreign land would not 
hasten to revisit his country? Who whilst hastening his 
homeward voyage would not long for prosperous winds, that 
he might the sooner embrace the dear ones? Let us regard 
Paradise as our country! We have already begun to esteem 
the Patriarchs as our parents. Why should we not hasten 
and run that we may see our country and salute our parents ? 
A great number of the dear ones are there expecting us; a 


dense and numerous crowd of parents, brethren, and children ~ 


are longing for us, secure of their own immortality [divinity?] 
and solicitous as yet for our salvation [exemption from the lot 
of human nature ?].?? % 

Yet in two passages Cyprian, whilst imitating an argument 
of his master Tertullian, introduces the Orthodox idea of the 
resurrection. Tertullian, in a declamatory address to the 
ladies, after complaining of their head-dress, their dyeing their 
hair, etc., adds: **I shall see (at the day of resurrection) . . . 
whether the angels will carry you painted in that fashion into 
the clouds to meet Christ.???® Cyprian, in his tract on the 
same subject as the foregoing, asks: ** Are you not afraid, I 





12 Strom. 6, 46. 138 Ady. Gent. 2, 13. 14 Ady. Gentes. 2, 77. 
15 De Mortal. 2¢, p. 166; compare De Exhort. Martyrit, pp. 183, 184. 
16 De Cultu Feminarum, 2, 7, p. 178. A. 


J. oo oo 


NOTE F.] FURTHER REMARKS ON § XXII. 5. 161 


pray, lest, when the day of resurrection arrives, your artificer 
should not recognize you in such a plight???” 

And again, Tertullian, in answer to those who deemed bap- 
tism unnecessary because Abraham had pleased God without 
it, says that faith alone might suffice for salvation prior to 
Christ’s suffering. But since the objects of faith have been 
multiplied by the NATIVITY, SUFFERING, AND RESURRECTION of 
Jesus, baptism had been added as a seal. Shortly after he 
adds, touching heretical baptism, that he cannot recognize it 
because they do not have THE SAME Gop as the Catholic 
Christians, nor a common CuHrist, and therefore not a com- 
mon baptism. Cyprian, in a passage on heretical baptism, 
imitates the above by asking whether Marcion holds the 
“¢same ONLY-soN CHRIST as we, BORN of the Virgin Mary, 
who . . . conquered death By DYING, and in his own person 
initiated the resurrection of the flesh.?? ® 

The probability is, either that Cyprian held different views 
at different periods, or that, after becoming a Liberalist, his 
early training and imitation of Tertullian betrayed him at 
times into phraseology inconsistent with some of his own 
opinions. 





NOTE F. 
FURTHER REMARKS ON § XXII. 5. 


Besipes Tertullian, who alone is quoted in that division of 
§ XXII. wheréof this note is the continuation, two documents 
are sometimes cited as belonging to the third century and as 
consigning Christian souls, on their departure from this life, 
to the Underworld: One is a treatise entitled ** Of the Rule 
of Faith,?? or **Of the Trinity.2? It has been attributed to 
Tertullian, Cyprian, and Novatian,! and been published by 





1 De Habitu Virginum, 17, Opp. p. 100. 

18 De Baptismo, cc. 18, 15, p. 262. + 

19 Epist. 73, p. 200. 

1 Rufinus says that certain heretics belonging to the party of Macedo- 
nius, who thought blasphemously of the Holy Spirit, had inserted into 
the collection of Cyprian’s Epistles, Tertullian’s reprehensible tract on 
the Trinity (meaning perhaps the foregoing), and sold it through the 


162°: : APPENDIX. [NOTE PF. 


Jackson as the work of the last-mentioned writer. The date 
at which it is first mentioned inclines me to regard it as a work 
of the fourth century, towards the close of which we first hear 
of it. A partial perusal of it inclines me to deem it deserv- 
ing of more attention than it has received.. The passage 
touching souls, with the connection in which it stands, is as 
follows: *¢ (God) even in the upper regions, that is, in those 
which are above the firmament and not visible at the present 
day to our eyes, originally instituted angels, classified spirit- 
ual powers, appointed thrones and principalities, and founded 
many other immensely spacious heavens and infinite works 
which are concealed from us; so that this world, however 
immense, may appear to be the last, rather than the only, 
work of God’s physical creation. For neither are the regions 
below the earth void of classified and appointed powers... For 
it is the place whither the souls of pious and impious are con- 
ducted, experiencing a foretaste of the future judgment, to the 
end that we may perceive that the superabundant immensities 
in all parts of his works are not confined within the inclosures, 
however capacious (sinus capacissimos) as we have said, of this 
world ; and also that we may think on depths and altitudes 
below the world itself; and that thus, having considered the 
greatness of the works, we can worthily admire the Architect 
of such immensity.” 





whole city of Constantinople at a cheap rate. (De Adulteratione Lib. 
Origenis, in Origen. Opp. Vol. 4, Append., p. 53. A. B.) To this state- 
ment Jerome responds in his usual rough way, that it contained two lies, 
for the work was neither written by Tertullian nor attributed to Cyprian, 
but was (or was called) Novatian’s, whose name was inscribed in its title. — 
(Apol. adv. Rufin., Hieronymi Opp., ed. Vallars., Vol. 2, col. 513.) 
Elsewhere, in direct opposition to the foregoing, Jerome says of Nova- 
tian: **He wrote . ... a large volume concerning the Trinity, making 
it as it were an epitome of Tertullian’s work, most persons. being igno- 
rant of which, deem the same to be Cyprian’s.”? — De Vir. Illust., Opp.,. 
Vol. 2, col. 911. . 

The work published by Jackson is probably the one referred to by 
Rufinus, for though it gives the Holy Spirit the prominence of a distinct 
chapter (C. 29), yet it ignores its personality, a fact not remarkable in 
the earlier days of Christianity. Jerome had evidently no certain knowl- 
edge concerning it, and seems to have been prompted in some of his re- 
marks chiefly by the desire of finding fault with Rufinus. It can as little 
have been an epitome of Tertullian’s opinions, or of any work of his, as 
it can have originated with him. I doubt whether it be Novatian’s, for it 
treats the punishments of God as intended for man’s improvement (p. 41, 
Jackson’s edit.), a view which, though possible, is very improbable in such 
a disciplinarian as. Novatian appears to have been. Sa 


NOTE F.] FURTHER REMARKS ON § XXII. 5, 163 


The other document above alluded to may be found at the 
close of the common English editions of Josephus, as trans- 
lated by Whiston under the title ** Josephus’s Discourse to the 
Greeks concerning Hades.?? ‘The Greek text of this will be 
found in Humphrey’s ** Apologeticks of Athenagoras,” pp. 
802-807. It appears also in a briefer form, corresponding 
to the first four fifths of Whiston’s translation, in the Ap- 
pendix to Havercamp’s Josephus, pp. 145-147. Its first 
four sections are stated to be an extract. The heading of 
this is: ** Concerninc Haves in which are contained the souls 
of the just and the unjust,?? and the remainder is an ex- 
hortation based thereon. The extract is professedly ‘* by 
Josephus,® from the *DiscoursE aGaINsT GREEKS,’ in ac- 
cordance with Plato,* *ConceRNING THE CAUSE OF THE UNI- 
VERSE.? 2? 

The extract is Jewish; the exhortation is by a Christian. 
The former says: ** Hades is . . . a subterranean region, in 
which the light of the world does not shine. Since, therefore, 
the light does not shine in this region, it must necessarily be 
IN PERPETUAL DARKNESS. This region is allotted as a place of 
custody for souls. ... The just ... are now detained in 
Hades, but not in the. same place as the unjust... . The 
just being led with lights . . . are brought to a region 
duwrewov [artificially ?] lighted where the just from the be- 
ginning have dwelt.” 

The Christian writer who quotes this accepts (§ 5, Hum- 
phrey’s Athenagoras, p. 304) its view of Hades as a place * in 
which the souls of all are detained until a time determined 
by God.?? 

The Jewish document is probably coeval with, or earlier 





2 Section 5 begins: ** This [previously quoted] is the Discourse con- 
cerning Hailes.” 

8 6 By JosrpHus” formed, I think, no part of the original heading. 
There is in Josephus, Antig. 18, 3, 3, an interpolation concerning Jesus, 
part of which terms him **a teacher of such men as received the truth 
with pleasure.”? The interpolator, or some one who upheld the passage 
as genuine, prefixed the name of Josephus to the present document, and 
inserted into its latter portion, after a mention of Christ, the statement: 
**Concerning whom WE HAVE ELSEWHERE WRITTEN MORE PARTICU- 
LARLY for such as seek the truth.”? The interpolation of the Antiquities 
is first mentioned by Eusebius in the beginning of the fourth century, nor 
~ the ascription of the present document to Josephus, probably, of earlier 

te. 

* Two readings occur: xard Idardva and xara Idardvos [Adyor] 
Compare the latter expression also in the fifth section of the document. 


164 | APPENDIX. [NoTE 6. 


than, the Christian era. Valerius Flaccus, writing about 
A. D. 70, blends its views and those of a Jewish document 
attributed to Sibylla, both of which he combines or confuses 
with a conception and phraseology of Virgil.® 





NOTE Gt 


MODERN VIEWS OF THE CLAUSE IN THE CREED, **HE 
DESCENDED INTO THE UNDERWORLD.” 


THatT creed which commonly passes under the name of the 
Apostles’ contains a clause concerning Christ, that ** He de- 
scended into the Underworld,” or, as it is inappropriately 
rendered in the ordinary English version, ** He descended into 
Hell,”? and this creed has been adopted into the most widely 





5 Virgil says of Aineas and his companion, that, on emerging from the 
regions of gloom, — 


** Devenere locos leetos, et amzena vireta 
Fortunatorum nemorum, sedesque beatas 
(Largior hic campos aether et lumine vestit 
Purpureo) solemque suum, sua sidera norunt.” 
«Eneid, 6, 638 — 641, 


which, if isolated, might mean that these individuals ** recognized their 
own sun and their own stars.?? Two other lines, however (Zneid, 6, 
680, 762), imply that these localities had their own sun and stars. In this 
sense Claudian (Rapt. Proserpinw, 2, 282-284) understood Virgil. 

The Erythrean Verses (cited in Judaism, p. 420) say that the good 
are led **into a light and life without care . . . and no one will any more 
say, night has come, or morning, . . . for [God] will make one long 
day.” They also say that on petition of the good, God will remove the 
wicked ** from the flaming fire. . . with no remnant of burn, ... to 
the Elysian Plain.?? Virgil, who repeatedly copied or parodied this doe- 
ument (see Judaism, Note A, footnotes 32, 51, 60, 65, 66, 74, 80, 83), 
seems to have confused Paradise with the Elysian Plain, and as a result 
to have placed sun and stars in the Underworld. 

A passage of Flaccus, based probably on the above confusion of locali- 
ties by Virgil, seems to borrow its perennial day directly from the Ery-. 
threan Verses. It says: *¢ All of whom [previously described]... Mer- 
cury leads . . . shaking his lamp . . . until they reach . . . the fields, 
ubi sol where [is or upon which shines the] sun and [where] the genial 
day lasts the whole year.?? — Valer. Flac. 1. 841-845, 

1 Referred to on pp. 83, 131, 


NOTE G.] MODERN VIEWS. 165 


circulated Protestant confessions of faith. But the belief of 
those Protestants was, or soon became, irreconcilable with the 
only object which the early Christians had assigned to this 
descent, that is, with the only conceptions of it entertained by 
those who originated the doctrine and who made it an article 
of faith. 

The Protestants, as has been already remarked,? were by 
their opposition to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, and to 
the liberation therefrom through masses or indulgences, led 
to give prominence to the idea that no change was possible 
after death. This being the case, they could not very well 
concede, that, in the case of the Fathers, a change, or transla- 
tion, HAD taken place. Equally unnatural would it have been 
to accept a ministry to the departed, since the only object 
of such a ministry was to change their condition, or to pre- 
pare the way for a change in it. A victory over Satan would 
be without result, since none were to be liberated by it, and 
not only would the same have held true of the Ransom, but 
the latter had since the eleventh century come to be regarded 
as paid to God. 


The Lutherans. 


Among the books which the Lutherans regard as confes- 
sions or expositions of their faith is the Formula of Concord, 
- prepared in 1576, the object of which, according to Mosheim, 
was **to give peace to the Lutheran Church, and to guard 
it against the opinions of the Reformed,” that is, of the 
Calvinists. It consists of two parts, the Summary View, 
and the Thorough Exposition. The numbering of the Arti- 
cles corresponds in these two parts, the ninth being, in each 
case, CONCERNING CuHRIST’s Gorne TO HELL. . 

Summary View. ° Article 9. Controversy has been waged 
touching this Article among theologians of the. Augsburg 
Confession, as to when and how the Lord Christ went, as 
our simple Christian faith teaches, to Hell; as to whether 
this took place before or after his death; also, whether it 
took place as regarded his soul only, or his divine nature 
only ; or as to whether it took place with soul and body, 
Spiritually or bodily. Also as to whether this Article belongs 





2 See § XII. 2. : 
8 Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 3, pp. 158, 154, translat. of 
Dr. Murdock. 


166 APPENDIX. [NOTE G. 


to the suffering, or to the royal victory and triumph of 
Christ. 

“¢ But since this Article, even as the preceding, cannot be 
comprehended by the sense or understanding, but must be 
apprehended by faith alone, our unanimous opinion is, that it 
is not a subject for discussion, but should only in the simplest 
manner be believed and taught, seeing that the blessed Dr. 
Luther, in his sermon at Torgau, Anno [15]33, etc., has ex- 
plained the said Article in a perfectly Christian manner, pre- 
cluded all unprofitable, unnecessary questions, and exhorted 
all pious Christians to Christian simplicity of belief. 

‘¢For it is enough to know, that Christ went to Hell, de- 
stroyed Hell for all believers, and freed them from the power 
of death, Devil, and eternal condemnation to Hell’s jaws.* 
But as to how this took place we should spare inquiry until 
in the other world, where not alone this, but other things, will 
be revealed which we have here simply believed, but could not 
comprehend with our blind understanding.?? ® 

‘The *¢THorovcH Exposition” of the same Article is but 
a briefer and more definite statement of belief. 

[Art. 9.] *¢Or Curist’s corne to Het. — And since, 
both among the early Christian Fathers and among some of 
our own teachers, different expositions have been given of 
the Article concerning Christ’s going to Hell, we leave it in 
the same simplicity of our Christian faith which Dr. Luther 
pointed out to us in his sermon concerning Christ’s going to 
Hell, preached in the castle at Torgau, Anno [15]33,° for we 





4 Had the term ** Hell? been here. used in a sense corresponding to 
the Underworld, the object of Christ’s descent would have corresponded 
to that mentioned in§ XXIII. But in German, as in English, the Un- 
derworld was not only translated by the term ** Hell,?? but commonly, 
and in the above instance, appears to have been understood as the place 
of torment. 

5 The original of this may be found in ** Concordia — Die Symboli- 
schen Buecher der Evang.-Lutherischen Kirche,?? von F. A. Koethe, 
Leipzig, 1830, on pp. 383, 384. 

6 A note in the Concordia refers to the **Sechsten jenaischen Theile 
{of Luther's works no doubt], p. 76, b. 77 und 78.” In Koenig’s Lehre 
von Christi Hoellenfahrt (pp. 153, 154) is an epitome of this sermon, ac- 
cording to which the second point in it appears to have been that Christ 
*¢ descended soOUL AND BoDy, yet so that his body remained at the same 
time in the GRAVE.” _ Luther seems to have held different opinions at 
different times, and his irreverence and impetuosity were probably in- 
creased by his perplexity when in his exposition of 1 Mos. [ce.] 7, he 
affirms ** that he (the Apostle Peter) blurts out like a madman, or one that 


NOTE G.] MODERN VIEWS. 167 


confess, *I believe on the Lord Jesus Curist, Gon’s Son, born, 
buried, and gone to Hell.? In which, then, we DISCRIMINATE, 
as separate articles, the BurIAL of Christ and his Goine To 
Heit, and we believe simply that THE WHOLE PERSON, Gop 
and MAN AFTER THE BURIAL, went to Hell, overcame the Devil, 
destroyed the power of Hell, and took all his might from the 
Devil. But as to how this took place we shall not trouble 
ourselves with acute and exalted thoughts, since this article 
can equally little as the preceding — How Christ is placed at 
the right hand of the almighty power and majesty of God — 
be comprehended with the understanding and the five senses, 
but is to be believed alone, and literally held. Thus we ob- 
tain the substance of it, and the consolation that neither Hell 
nor the Devil can take prisoner nor injure us nor any of those 
who believe on Christ.?? ? 

The history of theology presents more instances than the 
above, in which an obvious absurdity has been glossed over 
with the title of an incomprehensible article of faith ; and in 
which the inconsistency has been superadded, of stating that 
an idea could not be comprehended, and nevertheless had 
been satisfactorily explained. 


German and Dutch Calvinists. 


The Heidelberg Catechism, published in 1563, is the man- 
ual of instruction for the German and Dutch Reformed (or 
Calvinist) Churches. Question 44 asks, ** Why is there added, 
He descended into Hell??? Answer: **That I may be assured 
and wholly comfort myself in this, that my Lord Jesus 
Christ, by his inexpressible anguish, pains, terrors, and hellish 
agonies, in which he was plunged during all his sufferings, but 
especially on the cross, hath delivered me from the anguish 
and torments of Hell.?? 

*¢ A Compendium of the Christian Religion for those who 
intend to approach the Holy Supper of the Lord,?? is at pres- 
ent (and was perhaps originally) connected with, or a part of, 
the Catechism. Its twentieth Question asks, ** What is the 
sum of that which God hath promised in the Gospel, and com- 





is essed (wie ein wahnsinniger oder besessener Mensch), with words 
which even at this day we cannot understand.” I quote from Koenig, 
I 155, who refers to Luther’s works, ed. Lips., Tom. 1, pp. 512, 513. 
he reader may think that such a statement would be more applicable 
to the above extract from Luther’s own sermon, than to the Apostle. 
7 Koethe’s Concordia, pp. 484, 485. 


168 APPENDIX. [NOTE @. 


manded us to believe? Answer: *¢ That is comprehended 
in the twelve articles of the Catholic Christian Faith, which 
are as follows.” Here follows the Apostles’ Creed divided into 
twelve articles, and in the fourth article the clause, ** He de- 
scended into Hell.?? Question 32: ** What then hath Jesus 
Christ done to save us??? Answer: ** He has suffered for us, 
was crucified, and died, was buried, and descended into Hell ; 
that is, he suffered the torments of Hell, and thus became 
obedient to his Father, that he might deliver us from the 
temporal and eternal punishment due to sin.?? 


French Calvinists. 


Perhaps the name of Calvin might have stood more appro- 
priately than French Calvinists at the head of this, since the 
only quotation in it will be from him. The Early French Cal- 
vinists were, however, devoted to his authority. The quota- 
tion is from his Institutes: ** But it is not right to omit his 
* descent into Hell,? which is of no small importance towards 
the accomplishment of Redemption.® . . . It was necessary 
for him to contend with the powers of Hell and the horrors 
of eternal death; . . . he was made a substitute and surety 
for transgressors, and even treated as a criminal himself, to 
sustain all the punishments which would have been inflicted 
on them, only with this exception, that ‘7 was not possi- 
ble that he should be holden of the pains of death.? Therefore 
it is no wonder if he be said to have descended into hell, since 
he suffered that death which the wrath of God inflicts on 
transgressors.?? ® 

| Anglican Church. 


In the Articles of this Church, the third says: *¢ As Christ 
died for us and was buried, so also it is to be believed that he 
went down into Hell.” | 

When the Articles were first issued in the year 1552, the 
following explanatory clause was connected with the foregoing : 
*¢ For his body lay in the sepulchre until his resurrection ; 
the spirit which he gave up was with the spirits who were de- 
tained in prison, or the lower regions, and preached to them, 
as the passage of Peter testifies,?? etc.?° 





8 Institutes, Book 2, c. 16, sect.8. The citation is from Allen’s trans- 
lation, Vol. 1, p. 408, Lond., 1838. 

® Thid., $10, p. 409. 

10 See Pearson, Exposit. of the Creed, p. 341, edit. New York, 1844. 


NOTE G.] MODERN VIEWS. 169 


In the days of Queen Elizabeth, this explanation was 
erased, and it is but indirectly that any explanation is else- 
where alluded to. The Thirty-fifth Article enumerates certain 
homilies as containing *¢a godly and wholesome doctrine,” 
and appoints them ** to be read in churches by the ministers 
diligently and distinctly, that they may be understood of the 
people,”? and in the fourteenth of these homilies is a passage, 
which, although obscured by declamation and by the mingling 
of disconnected ideas, implies a victory won by the Saviour 
below. ** His death destroyed death and overcame the Devil. 
. . . Thus is death swallowed up by Christ’s victory, thus is 
Hell spoiled forever. If any man doubt of this victory, let 
Christ’s glorious resurrection declare him the thing. . . . If 
Christ had the victory of them all [death, sin, the Devil, and 
Hell] by the power of his death, and openly proved it by his 
most VICTORIOUS AND VALIANT resurrection, . . . why may not 
we... say... * Where is thy dart, O Death? Where is thy 
victory, O Hell 799 # 

Whence it would seem that the way of escape for the Sav- 
iour had to be opened by his valor in a personal conflict. 
Such an association of ideas with the Saviour, though it might 
kindle a man’s soul in the second or third century, is anything 
but pleasant to a Christian of the nineteenth. 


The Westminster Confession. 


The above-named Confession, with the Larger and Shorter 
Catechisms appended, represents, or is regarded as represent- 
ing, the belief of influential denominations in England and 
the United States. The Apostles’ Creed appears at the end of 
the Shorter Catechism, and to the clause ** He descended into 
hell,” is appended the following explanatory note: *¢ That. is, 
continued in the state of the dead, and under the power of 
death, until the third day.” ¥ 

If we ask what is meant by this explanation, we find that 





11 See Burnet’s History of the Reformation, Vol. 1, p. 626, edit. New 
York, 1843. 

12 Homilies, pp. 387, 388, edit. Philadelphia, 1844. 

18 This explanation appears also in the answer to Question 50 of the 
Larger Catechism. Christ's humiliation after death consisted in being 
buried and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of 
death, until the third day, which hath been otherwise expressed in these 
words : * He descended into Hell.’ ” 


170 APPENDIX. [NOTE G. 


the Confession denies any one state for all the dead, affirming 
that there are two states, Heaven and Hell, and that * be- 
sides these two places for souls separated from their bodies 
the Scripture acknowledgeth none.?? * And to these two states 
respectively we are informed that the good and wicked go at 
death.* Concerning the good it is said, ** The communion in 
glory with Christ which the members of the invisible Church 
enjoy IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEATH is that their souls are then 
. . . received into the highest (?) heaven.??® If we now ask into 
which of these states Christ went, hell can hardly have been 
intended as his abode after death, else would any explanatory 
note have been unnecessary. Let us substitute for this note, 
therefore, the expressed condition of the RigHTEoUS dead, and 
the clause with its note will read, ** He descended into Hell,” 
— ‘That is, immediately after death was received into the 
highest heavens.?? 

Such an incongruity cannot have been intentional. It 
strikingly betrays the perplexity of those who fell into it, as 
also their willingness to conceal that perplexity by the use of 
language which in their system was meaningless. 


Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. 


The Articles of this Church, as established in 1801, are 
simply a revised issue of the Anglican ones. Article ITI. 
states, *¢ Ir 1s TO BE BELIEVED that he (Christ) went down into ~ 
Hell,” and as a prerequisite to baptism, the candidate or 
sponsor is obliged to assent to the questions, ** Dost thou be- 
lieve all the Articles of the Christian Faith as contained in . 
the Apostles’ Creed 1% and *¢ Wilt thou be baptized in this 
faith?°? But over the Apostles’ Creed stands the direction, 
*¢ Any churches may omit the words, *He descended into 
Hell? ; implying, as would appear, that IT NEED NOT BE 
BELIEVED. 

Article XXXV., on the Homilies, is copied, with a note, 
which * suspends the order for the reading of said Homilies in 
churches until a revision of them may be made, for the clear- 
ing of them as well from obsolete words and phrases as from 





14 Confession of Faith, c. 32, 1. 

18 Tbid. and Larger Catechism, Answer to Question 86. 

16 Larger Catechism, Answer to Question 86. By comparing the ex- 
tract from Justin in § XXII. 2, it will appear that the standard of 
Orthodoxy had undergone a change. 


ad 


NOTE H.] THE SIBYLLINE ORACLES. Bh? 


local references”? ; but the note states that ** this Article is 
received into this Church so far as it declares the books of 
Homilies to be an explication of Christian doctrine, and instruc- 
tive in piety and morals.?? This would seem to indorse the 
doctrine of the Homilies, that Christ had to fight his way out 
of SaTan’s dominions. But over the Apostles’ Creed is stated, 
that the words, ** He went into the place of departed spirits,” 
are considered as words * of the same meaning | with those in] 
the Creed,?? and one of the prayers in the burial-service is 
addressed to *¢ Almighty God, with whom .. . the souls of 
the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the 
flesh, are in joy and felicity,”? implying, apparently, when 
taken together, that the Saviour was not in the dominions of 
Satan, but with God. 


Concluding Remark. 


Would it not be more to the credit of Christians, if, instead 
of retaining as a part of their creed, and endeavoring to ex- 
plain the above clause, they were candidly to admit, that it 
originated in the now untenable idea of an Underworld; and 
that, so far from being a necessary article of faith, it is a tenet 
which every intelligent Christian, who does not wish to make 
a mockery of Christianity or to trifle with his own candor, 
ought to recoil from subscribing or uttering ? 





NOTE H? 
SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 


In the Argument for the Gospels (§ XXV.) I have quoted 
the First and Eighth Books of the Sibylline Oracles. Bleek 
and Luecke ? regard the First and Second Books as belonging, 
not to the period discussed in this Essay, but to the middle of 
the fifth century, a supposition so strongly contradicted by 
their general contents, that Luecke’s acceptance of it seems 
singular.* One cause of such a supposition may have been a 





1 Referred to on p. 136. 
2 See Luecke, Einleit. in die Offenbar., Vol. 1, p. 268. 
% The first book consists, with its heading, of 407 lines, whereof 330 


172 APPENDIX. [NOTE I. 


mention of the Holy Virgin, Book 1, line 365 (or 359), p. 183, 
where it must be an error of transcription. The parallel line 
(Book 8, line 292, p. 737), from which, however, this may 
originally have differed, reads, in the same connection ** hope 
of the peoples (éA7ida Aaév).?? To the foregoing error has - 
been added a misinterpretation of Book 2, line 312, which 
needs a word of explanation. The Fathers, borrowing per- 
haps from the Jews, regarded Eve as a virgin until after her 
expulsion from Paradise. She was a virgin, therefore, at the 
date of her temptation. The author of the Sibylline frag- 
ment in which the above line is found, seems to have held, 
with the Millenarians, that the Judgment was to supervene 
seven thousand years after the creation, and states that God 
- cave seven ages as a time of repentance to men who had 
been led astray by an unpolluted Virgin,?? (p. 289). The 
allusion is to Eve, not to the Virgin Mary. 





NOTE I. 


HOMILIES ON LUKE. 


OrIGEN wrote (see Indirect Testimony, Note L, footnote 23) 
FIVE homilies on Luke which must, like his other works, have 
been in Greek, since Jerome thought of translating them. 

The thirty-nine homilies on that evangelist now published 
in Origen’s works! bear unmistakable evidence of having been . 
composed in Latin,? though by a writer familiar with Alexan- 





are so far from being marked by the Catholicism of the fifth century, that 
they contain no allusion to Christianity. They are probably from a Jew. 
The remaining 77 are Christian, probably of the third century. See, 
touching the Sibylline Oracles, Judaism at Rome, Note A of the Ap- 
endix. 

i: They may be found in Origen’s works, Vol. 3, pp. 932-979 edit. 
de la Rue; 5, 85-236 edit. Lommatzsch ; also in Jerome’s works, edit. 
Vallars. 7, cols. 247-366. Twenty of these homilies deal with the first 
two chapters and nineteen with the remainder of the Gospel. 

2 6 Moses said: I am &doyos,? which, though a Latin would have 
expressed it otherwise, can nevertheless be appropriately translated * void 
of speech? or [else] Sof reason.??? Hom. 5, Opp. 3, 937 B. (5, 101). 
*¢This virtue . . . by them is called drudia or mwerpiérns. But we by 
a periphrasis can call it, ‘when any one is not puffed up but humbles 


NOTE 1.] HOMILIES ON LUKE, 173 


drine ideas. Passages in them favor the view that they were 
written later than Origen’s time,? and one statement fairly im- 
plies that they originated after the establishment of Christian- 
ity under Constantine.* , 





himself.?°? Hom. 8, Opp. 3, 941 C. (5,114). §*God therefore is asked 
that for a little while they may be turned into stones. The Greek lan- 
uage utters this more expressively, dro\@wGeinoav.°? Hom. 22, Opp. 
3, 959 C. (5,172). The following two may also indicate a Latin original 
but are less conclusive. *** Hail, favored one!? which in Greek is ex- 
pressed by xexapirwpévy.?? Hom. 6, Opp. 3, 939 A. (5,106). *** When 
thow yoest with thy adversary to [u| judge.? He does not put judge with 
the article [preceding] lest he should seem to designate a particular one, 
but without the article . . . [a distinction] which AMoNG GREEKS is 
more intelligible.” Hom. 35, Opp. 3, 974 A. (5, 220). 
8 66So many ages have passed by and such innumerable years from 
that sani Yoon John the Baptist taught] until the present day.?? Hom. 
23, Opp. 3, 959 F. (5,178). **Conventicles of Christians are gathered 
im omni orbe throughout the whole world.*? Hom. 12, Opp. 3, 946 D. 
5, 128). ‘**Jesus teaches in toto orbe throughout the whole world. 
om. 32; Opp. 3, 970 C. (5, 206). Compare the remark, ** There will 
be a time when the people of the Jews will say, . . . ‘what thou hast 
shown wniverso orbi to the whole world show also to us.?°? Hom. 33; 
Opp. 3, 971 C. (5, 209-210). 
# “Who [of us] was not incredulous of [receiving] justice! [of us] 
who now propter Christum because of [dominant] Christianity have jus- 
tice, and pursue justice.? Hom. 7; Opp. 3,940 A. (5, 110). 








INDEX I. 


QUOTATIONS FROM SCRIPTURE. 





Judaism at Rome is designated by J, Indirect Testimony by I, and Underworld Mission 


by U, prefixed to the paging. 

Page Page 

Genesis 2; 1-27 J 37, 38, Ps. 24, 1-5 . . . J 23 
565 4, 7, . 194, 156 

ee paar Po 30, .U 44 
Bes ee WD 50,46. ...-a. 28 
1; 7, 8, 14, 20, 21 32; ae 
24,297,381. 1 J569 34,8... . J 230 
7” Sra eae 13 40,6... . J 892 
2,24. . . . J 569 45,3. . Zz 41 
oe es: a) 49,14,15 . . U 36 
SS BOS eats at odor ce) + eikt Me 
46,34... U2 50,3... 544,45 
49, 10, a ° . I 22 50, 7-17 . . . Jd 22 
Exod. 3 2,4. . 345, 46 509,12. . J392 
$,4,6 .. . U146 51, 17 J 487, 438; U 86 
3,2.6,14,15 . 1191 OF PoE a 
7,%, 21. . . J 264 68, 18 U 33, 51, 67, 95 
SOK 52 mal 7D... .). UO 8 
19,1011 . . U 47 77,16... U 34 
20 U 6 82,24...7 % 
23;20,21 . . 0147 82,6,7. U 150,151 
23, 20, 21,28. J 349, 86, 13 . U 34 
350 88.4,5. . 035,92 

Se U 59 90, oe ST 
3.61% 2. I 483 94,9. . J 68 
33,20 . . . 35% 96, 10 U 71 
17,14. U 88 OF. 8% 4 U 71 
19, 9-18, 32-87 J 21, 22 97,5. J 570 
ut. 4, 24 . 345] 103,8 J 23 
i.e... « JR 03, 13 J 53 
2 18:5 3. U 8 104,1,2,24 . J373 
32’, 22 . J 4 04, 32 J 570 
34,5,6.. . J393 105, 15 U 63 
1Sam. 24,1. .: J 48 06, 20 J 50 
1Chron. 21,1 .. J 48 107, 10, 14,16 U 36 
Job 28,22?) . . U13 19, 33, J 23 
28 . J 48 130,803. 477671 
Ps. 2,2 . U 64 141; 2 . 5438 
eae... . U 41 1465-9... J 2B 
3,5 . U29, 34, 35,44) Prov.1,8. . - J 875 
6,4,5,9 ..U 34 1,030: .. 5 49 
ae... 5373 S26. .5 sia @ 
16,10 . 36, 44, 45 S15... cee 
18,5....0 3 8,18.) s-y tee 
19, 1, 4,5 . J 378, 374 8 13 . 6", G8 J 29 
eeeas 6 2-98 10,31 . . .J348,49 
92,4,5.. U34, 40 13°05. . . . S375 
26’. I’ 39 14.8 5 dee 

22, 11-18 . U65, 66 W318. co SSB 











Page 

Prov.18,22... 875 
19, 14,22 . . 33875 
a8. aec4es 

, 22, J 375 
24:26; 31,28 J375 
Eee. 3,11. . J 565 
5, 1 . .. S22 
12, 12 J 882 
12: 13 J 24 
wits... U 146 
i, 10-18 . J 2 
"il J 392 

1; 13 [££ B 
2.3 I 81 
13, 10 . J 261 
14, 12 J 570 
14,144... 059 
14; 16 sie BOF 
34,4. J 261 
40, 0123 
40, 22 . J878 
42°6,7. . U94,95 
o4-6,%, 2). 21s 
45.1,2. U 36 
49.9.0. 6. S20 
49:8,9. U 13 
53,2). . I 39 
Be 8 eT 0 
53,122 . I 57 
66, 1 . . . . J 338 
Spurious. . U (28), 37 
(48, 58) 

Jer. 7, 22,23 . J 891, 392 
S6t gh sc. O45 
31, 9 . * . o 538 
$1, 31,82 . . I 6 
Spurious U (28), 37, 38, 

39 (43; 53) 

Lam. 4, 20 J 855 
Ezek. 20, 12 I 48 
31,4. . .J501, 502 
38, 19,20 . . J 260 
43.2. J 260 
Dan. 7,9. . .d 260, 487 
WAGES Sea 

uf 25 . . ° J 261 
10, 5,6, 11,12 J 260 
Hos. 6,2... U 38, 48, 44 








Page Page 
Hos.6, 6... . J302|Luke2,11 .. I 60) Acts24,5 .. 
13,14. . 083,43 I 201 26,27 . . 
14; 5,7 . 3373 6, 15,16. . : I 158 26,23 | 7 
Joel 2, 10, 31 J 261 ; J 333|Rom.1,18 : . 
Amos 3,6. . J 47 10,2... Tm Oh ee 
, 31-25 J 391 10; 22 3383; U4, 147 i Se 
Micah’6, 6-8. . J 21, 392 11, 21, 22 U 66| 4,69. . 
Nahumi,5 ... J 45 16, 29 U 122 4,9,10: 
yech. 4,2... . J 260 18, 34 . 0137 5. its 
11, 12,18. . 2112] 38,39. . .. . 7145) 1 
Mal. 1, 8, 18, 14 J 392, 393 20, 37,88 . . I 3 13, oe 
eat Be Wssaae a e 2-8 a EO 14, 3, 5, 14, 28 
SA0 i OUR B80 kg ck ae 14,9 cost 
A. cs VOLES 22° 70 J 333 14, Wiese e 
Matt. 1, 1-20 I 202 2372. . I 60\10or.1,22 . : . 
hb ee er 23; 48 U 110, 138 2,7, U78, 
4:34 .. 80,81 23; 42,48 U 138, 139 4,9. arn 
5,9,19.. . J 458 > 46 U 88 6, 17 : 
5, 6.) s 3. . 100 24; 11 I 9 7,21 : 
5,2.... U 9 24;13,15 | :190,91 ee eae 
6, 28,29. . . J 373 > 32 . I'8 GO uk 
6.90. FS 94,93 . 4. 2) 91 9, 4-88. 65 
8,11... . U 27/Johni1, 13,14. ; 1200 10, 25-28 < : 
8,29.... U 80 1,12,18. ; | J 256 15,08. oe 
es T eR: ge a. ea eee 18, 2, 
16,3. . 1158 1,21. J 117 15, 41) Sues 
10, 22,23 . . I 78 1,25 ; I 48 15, 502 sae 
10,28... 0123 3, 25, 26 ; I 49 15,82. 4 
1-8. 2. 8 48 58°. . 149; U 565 15, 54,55 .U 
71,2... Ree 5, 39, 46, I 38 16;8,9. . 
$7.97 9 Ne 8,56. . U 22/20or. 3,7 
12,299 : . U66,71 9, 22 | . I 60 4, 4 J 383, 834; 
12,40 : | 2,138 Ot. ick ee 6, 14, 15 
12,48 . 3833;'U7 10,18. ... U 3% 12,2. 
13,65... 52: eRe 126s et SE 12; 7,8 
10,4. 3). 15, Wilt 2 i156) oe 
19,27: 2 ste a 16.2 ° .°. See 216.55, 
20,23 ...U 16 17,8). SG eee 29 . 
21,13 . 338, 34, 458 20:1, 14,18 . I 90 2? 11-13 : 
22,82 . 131; U 2% ; iat: (sat 8 10 gene 
BS,30) 3's J 159 See also I 93-102 5,6; 6,15. 
23,16,18 . J34,35|Acts2,22-31. . U4849|Eph.i,18-21 . 
cy aera are 9,28. «ss a8 ie WR ey: 
26,87 ... Ué4 VE es 3 372-10 : . 
3 . © U 65, 80 7,48 e co Jd 34 3; 9,10 . # . 
27,1-11. . .189, 90 eR ee 4,7-11 : Ull 
27; 15-20 . . I’ 87 10, 1, 35. J 471 3 
27,23-26 . . I 88 oe pepe 4,857 a8 
27, 51-54; 188; U 50 * 22, 35 J 24 6,62 ah 
562 . U 14,15, 38 13; 16, 26, 43, 50 J 471 6,12 . 162; 
27, 59-28,5 188, 89 82-87. U45,61| Phi.i,1: .. 
28; 10-16’. . I’ 89 16,1,6,7 . . J 257 1, 12, 18 
28,19,20 . 149,91 OMe See ae 27,8 . 
Mark 2°, 21 . J 338 317 .. . F231, 292 S, Selt. (a 
3, 18 . . 1158 16, 21, 30,87 . J 282 S$, 18, 14. aus 
SS Ae at 51-8 ’ U 61| Col. 2, 16,17... 
720 | . 1154 4,1 . 47 3, 22 See 
7, 18, 19 F 398 17; 5-7, 11, 18, 207 233 4,1 > ae 
9° 41’. I 60 17. 2. 1 Thess. 2,16 . . 
10, 48 . J 858 17, 234 10-12. ¢ 
SR Re ae ene ae 18, : J 231 4,15-17. . 
BE a os BO 18:3,3 (0; 2 aaa Be 
15, 28 . . . aL 57 18, s] . Jd 471 5, 15 ° . 
79-20. > 1190, 91 18,13 : . . §234|2 Thess. 2,1-12 J 
16,17,18 . . 1206 19,9... . J257/1Tim.1,9. 
Luke 1,1,2 .. . 1182 99,12 ; |; 5467| 1, 19,20. 
1, 69-71: | 93, 94 22° 16 . I 50 3°8-10 | 
1, 71, 72, 74,75 U 94 22,2... 3240 2;9,10. . 


g 


et 
SenSake 


. e . 
qj 


_ 


RE rt Oy HC 
_ 


ee 
Gee Sis 
ye. See 


SHH 
be 


BERESVoRSokVe 


BES enicHemrcte 
eh 


q 
~ 


soadds, 
SsBSee 


_ 
_ 


q 
Piscean 
Skok 


q 
es 


8 
& 


oe BS 


a 


or 
i) 


Pes 


did 
Say 


rereieat crea ereunnmins 
eueSeskeehSecquarak 


QUOTATIONS FROM SCRIPTURE. 177 








Page Page Page 
1Tim.3,1,8 .. 1213|1Pet.1,19 . . . U 86|Judel4,15 . . . 5488 
oe... SITS 1, 3,25. ; | Ub2|Rev.1,4.:.. 0149 
Sa. REO i ee 1,1217: . . J 260 
3,15-4,2.. I 73} 2,18 ais te Pe tg 
67,8... 220| RSet 2. Ew Sie... J 259 
en. ROL ET ya a ae no nein a 
6.4555. 10467) B1sO. 2 2 O48 Oe ash. U1 
Bos... 218) 3.1.0; . - 5 46| 6,10. .-. J 487 
Bete. 5 ee) Ae. s UB, 8 * 12°14; | 3260, 261 
2 Tim. 1,15 J 251, 257, 262 Sc ce Ob aging wee 
1,10-12... J251 . U 6 wi 2... 4 
76... . 6 T 68/2 Pet. 2,4,5. . J 286, 287 BR re AT 
ae vie eee Be. sk SIO 13,8. . . 5601, 508 
2. 16,19. .3250,251| 3,67 ... J 56 RS ell 
71-9. . 15249, 250 3, 7,10, 12,18 J 485 14, 18,20 . . J 487 
4, 14,15. . J 251, 381 486 SOLE.) RAST 
Titus 1,5-7 . 3178; 1218| 3,7,12,18. . I 36| 17,8,11 . 5 490,499 
eee I 64 4 Rie RS ae; 17, 15 . J 47 
a A ae oe EN ie ay 3 18,6. J 268, 270 
1,13; 2,4. . I 9M|1John2,i8. 2. 5137 18;6,24. . . J 292 
2, 14,15. U60,67,98| 2,28... . 5255 18,2)... J.487 
Boos se oa aE OO Digs a vg LS a ee es | 
8,8,9 .. . I 66;2John,verse7 . . J 137 20,4.°..'. U149 
10,5,8 . . . U 85/8 John, verses5-8 . J 255 BO Bode so. 30-878 
12 ee. . . a I 62 9-10 . . o J 254 20, 13 . J 488 
James 1, 18,14: . J 48 Epistles . . 198-102 21,1, 3,4,28. J 488 
patcs . weal Judes,7 . 5's O17 23° 7,10, 12,20 J 259 
DPet,1,1.... U9) 6,13,18... 5484) 22,1319). J 
tee. «6 He 


12 


INDEX II. 


CITATIONS FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS. 





Judaism at Rome is designated iy Bi , Indirect Testimony by I, and Underworld Mission 
by U, prefixed to the paging. 








Page Page Page 
Actsor Pmatz,2 . J 462 9,7,8 .. . U 58) Carontcon Pascnate J 81 
OE RN BEE 9, 13-18. . . I 171 | Carysosrom 
ID As acti can be ee eee 9, 16,17 . U 53, 54, 118 Hom. 2, > te 
Also 15, 107-142 U 155 10, 8-10, 14, 15 U_ 83 | Crcero, 
ADUMBRATIONS ON JUDE, 10, 99-31. 59, 60 de Invent. Rhet. 
Ul 11, 2-15 . I 171 ~ 98) eer et = 
ADUMBRATIONS ON PETER $3736. 5 4 U 81) de Partit. Orat. 
U s6| ° 11,18-22 .1171,172| 2 2 oe 
ANDROCYDES . . . . . . . U 84] pro Flacco, 28 . J 148, 149 
ANTIPATER OF TaRSUS J 4 11,41-48 .. 1170] proPlane. 83. . J 448 
ANTONINE, Maro, Letter ATHENAGORAS, Supplicat. Paradoxa Stoic. 
of PECTS pe FO Ss a ee 4,5,6. . . J 49,50 
de Rebus, 11,3. J 361 8 .... »- £196) deFinibas, 
Pseudo. . . 1167, 168 20 5. 6h: = we ee 4,7 3 ims eee 
AposToL. ConstTiTUT. de Resurrect.1 U 157 /- Tuscul. Quest. 
,23. . .. I 45| Avewring, Epist.54 I 161 4 CRs . J 568 
ARISTOTLE, PsEuDO, de Civitate Dei, de Nat. Deor. 
de Mirabil. Auscul- 6,10,11. . J 226, 228 18: .. See eee 
| aan eee 20, 19 J 503, 504 ,30 J 142; 115, 81 
ARISTOTLE, de Ocelo, cont. Faustum, 1,48-46...d9 
» i rN a ps Be Sf hae 1,46-48. . J 48, 44 
ARNOBIUS, adv. Gentes, 33,1,2,3 . U 27-28 1, 10160 cee 
1,1 .... . I 18] Barnasas, Epistle, 2,12. . « J 578 
: EO on ae: Bo ieilie i . U 10 2, 8. ss ee 
Ry Gas ADs Tae | 5 (4, 10) . U 29. 3,36. ae te Set 
Bits % . Ulld 7 (6, 3,5). U 86 3,94. . J 64; 115 
2713 . . 0160 14 (12, 20-22) UT 94,95} de Divinat. 
2,53. . Ui1l4 TORE ie 1,3 + 4) 
2,63. . U 82 15 (13, 8-6) . I 8 se rae” a | 
2,73. . . J 542 15 (13, 10) '.. 4 Wvt 1,18. ... J 147 
2, 78 Paes 0 yp 3 18, 19 (14, 3, 5, 6) 1, 37,388. . J 157, 158 
=. 7 ov ee Ull 1,8). one 
5,5 . J 398 | Barucn, 4, 36,87 . I 33 Ly Tak . J 435, 486 
PEs . IT 2 "Re oye oe 570 2, 75, 10. sos oe 
7,51... . U 86/ Casar, de Bello Gallico 2,82,88. . . J 291 
ASCENSION OF ISAIAH, a eae U wu 2,3 5. ee 
F ~ » « U 58| Caprrotinus, 2,110,111,112 J 415, 
ot Eee tee es, Co i Antonin. Pius, 
3, 12-25 . . 1169, 170 : . . . « J 564] Scipio’s Dream,3. J 150 
3,18... . Jd 472 9 . . . . J81,360| de Legibus, 
4,2. . U 58] M. Antonin. 1,6 . ..oSeeeeee 
4, 2-14 J 499, 500 13... . J 545, 564 28°. « « FO 
4,7... .U 8| 2... .. 5862] ad Atticum, 
(ee ae U_ 59| Cassran, Collationes, 5 vi - J 8 
7,908. 6. £170 21,20... U 78| ad Fratrem, 
8,7 ° + UU Cems os AS ei ee 1,1 J 30, 72, 147, 148 
8, 24 - « U 25| Censorinvs, de Die Natali, 381 
9,5,40. .. I170 17... . .JS119,120 1,2 . «Se 








CITATIONS FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS. 


Page 
Cicero, Quintus J 55, 56, 72 
CLEANTHES, 
Hymn, 
ll. 2, 12-14,20. J 50 
5 | a |= ny 
22-24,35,36 . J 51 
CLEARCHUS. J 382, 383 
CLEMENTINE HomIiss, 
2,17 Rae ey | 
3,3,7,37 . J 358, 359 
3, 7 . . ’ + 194 
6,138,318. .; J 46 
a I 24 
me. ee 
‘ ; I 29 
> . . . 
16, 15,16 J 359; I 194 


RL 
A ig se} 
oe a et J 460 


E 


87,128 ° . . J 230 
raz: See at 
ee Bo 
1,58. . .J 460,461 
2,99. . . J 407, 408 
Bok coke ck a 
Strom. 
Oe ne en. 
Y 64, 72,87°101 © er 
| Ries | 
1,67. . £68; 0 25 
1,70,72. . . J 388 
1, 108. : J 440 
BE a. a BBD 
A. oa OC 
2,45. . . . J 465 
25 .... 5.461 
Ie «2 UO 8 
292. . * I 188 
» 69 > > 7: J 461 
yg eae ar 
ee er 44 
5,67 . . . > J 230 
5,68 . . * . J 461 
ae 
Gado. sd 815 
>’ 
WE ws L 66 
6,48 . . . J 496, 459 
6,44. U 12-14 
6,45. . U 98 
6, . U 14-15, 29 
159-160 
647... .0 15 
3 3 68 
7. 461 


91 . . > . J 
7,106. J 331; U 130 
CLEMENT oF Rome, Epist. 
eames.” 6) fare O18 
49,50. . . U 90,91 
Coprx THEOD. 
I 45 








Page 

CoHORTATIO AD GR2ECOS 
ll... .d 169, 464 
ae ‘ 847 
14 : ; L 67 


1 a ow Oy a. a 
ae gE 
i... tae 
7 ae . J 464 
Reo U 119 
3 J 405, 449 


Brats ee 
88 J 341, 405, 426, 441 
Commopianvs, Instruct. 


37,1-18 .. J 15]: 
J 


ConsTANTINE, Edicts ig. 
Corpus Juris Civiiis, 
Digesta, 1, 2, 2, 47, 
J 168, 171, 172 
Codex Justinianus, 
Counci OF GANGRA, 
Couxou, oF LAopIcEA, 
Councr. oF Nice, 20 U 77 
CypRIAN, Epistola 73 7 on 
Testimonia ady. Ju- 
dzeos, 
2, 24 . . . . 
3, 24,25 .. 
2, 25 . . . 
. le ee 
arene 
de 9 Vanitate, 
de Habitu Virginum, 
17 Ul 


De Morte Ciaupn Lupus, 
So. 42 
1451. 6 « J 215 

Dre ORATOR. DIALOG. 


1,29. « J 295, 296 
| ere sai 
Dio Cassius, 





179 


Page 
45, 1 . es — d 146 
47,156 . . 3187, 542 
fk eae 
54,15 “J 68, 161, 162, 
54,16 . .J5 169,170 
54, 1 . « 3165 
54,26 . . J 69,162 
Bau... 3 81T 
55,7 psi 82 
55,2 ... 5176 
57,5 , «S182 
57,7 . . 5609 
57,8 tS BL 
57,9 J 7, 605, 506, 518 
57, 10 .J 510, 611 
57, J 509, 51 
57, J 519 
57, 13 J 509 
57, 14 J 


abit 74 
57,17 J 510, 511,516 
57,18 . . J 188; 198 


57,19... 
57,20... J 526 
BOB obra Eee 
BO.8, 5. (tae 6i8 
58,10 .... J 625 
58, ll T 526, 538 
58, 12 J 527. 528 
58, 13 . J 627 
58, 14 J 532 
58, 15, 16 528 
8,16 . J 527 
58, 17 535 
BES18 oa 
58,20 . | J 110,111 
58, 21 J 479, 520, ea, 
58, 23 J 533 
58,24 . J 530 
59,4. J 9, 215 
59,5 J 200 
59, 6 . 59,211 
59, 9 . F213 
59,10 . J 103 


122... 528 
713. . J 207, 208 
59,16 J 206, 208. 534 
S097. 2.4.0 180 


bo,10 . os TS 
21 


59 208 
59,26 . J 212 
59,29 . J 210 
60,3. T 9, 22: 
60,4. . J9,94, 224 
60,6. . .J 222, 293 
60,0)... 0224 
OG,08.. 3-6 ia 
60, 15 ° 7 . 223 
60,16... 0 oe 
60,17 . .J 225, 240 
60, Spa 

61, ie 

62, 18 J 248, 247 
64, si aes 


180 


Page 
Dio CAsstvs, 

66, ashy) MORES 
66,8... . 5544 
66, 9 . J 9, 255 
66,13 . J 54, 55 
66, 14 . J 620 
66,15 J 80, 272, 278 
274 
66, ... 5274 
66, 22,23 . J 274, 275 
66, 23,24... 527 
7 aa ae S 
67, 13 J 55,277 ,278,283 
67,14. . .J 279, 280 
68,1... . J 286 
68, 2. e e . A i 81 
68,82 .. J 321 
68, note 18. J 81 
69, 12-14 . J 326, 327 
ve J3 

36 . 4 


72,18... «0 668 
ee 


es A 
Dio GarysosTom, Orat. 
11,46 . . J 420, 421 
13,1. . .J 280, 281 
13, 1 . . J 455 
21, J 493 
23,3,4 . . J 298, 299 
32, 4 e . bY 2 
36, 12 - J 298 
45, oi aa BOO 
46, 1-4. . J 800 
iF : 800-302 
Dioporvus SIcuLvs, 
¥en f I) 
Diogenes LAERTIUS, 
Zeno, 84. J 4 


DIOGNETUS, Epistle to, 
1, 8, 4,6 J 462, 465, 474 
85a spats I 18 


Pye i ihac, wale seen 
Dionysius oF AL - 
DRIA . PET js 
Dionysius oF HAtLicar- 
nassus, 1, <jas ole 415 
1,88 ... .J 152, 158 
; aT ES Le 
4,62. J 898-400, 435 
8,52. ... U128 
Dispute oF ARCHELAUS 
AND MANES, 
30. . . U8l, 62, 68 
Sch aisha BA dO 
Doctrina ORIENTALIS, 
eae ea ae U 
BBs 4 oe ee 
ST ec aw sl 26, 128 
Bl 6 «oA 106, 128 
Gio on ee 
638 . . . U 20 
63,64. . U 124,125 
17 . aa. ae) 
80 - U 48, 128 


EcLoGa PROPHETARUM, 
82, 88 





INDEX II. 


Page 
EnocuH, Book oF, 
aoe 12,18 J 485 pe 


8 J 488 

ire 483 
7.3.7 0% . ie 486 
7.18-8,8 . . J 48 


2B. e482 
29, 5-7 < . 3 aa 
14,29-4... 5485 
15,1-7,8 J 485, 486 
15,6,7,8 U 148,149 
f Waban eg oa 
18, 14,16 . . J 484 
91,8... 2 2 496 
G16... ee ae 
47,2,4. J 487 
BOO. 2 J 488 
53.3,5. J 485 
54,6... . J 485 
54,9... 00 S487 
66, 4 » « JF 485 
89,42... J 489 
92,16,17 . J 486, 488 
96,1218 . . J 489 
8.85" 6s 5 SRT 
103,8 ... J 487 
104,13 .. J 487 
104,7-9 .. J 488 
105,2 ... J 487 
EPICTETUS, 

8, 15,165. oT 68 


Espras, 2d, 
3, 14, 15. J 
» 28, J 328, 
4, 28 5 329 
5, 26-88. . J 181, 132 
6, 22-28. . J 827, 328 
9, 42, . . . A i 181 
10, 32-84 . . J18l 
11, 1-39, 41 J 182, 133 
12,3041 .. J 184 
14, 11 . J 38,118 
14,15,16 . . ZT 19 
, 14-19 - J 828 
Erruscan TEACHING J 87, 38 
EUSEBIUS, 
Preeparatio, 
15, 18 - J 45 
Ecc. Hist 
1,13 ‘ 73 
1,18 . 140, 149, 150 
158-161 
3,37. +, 204 
3,39 . « 181, 82, 203 
4, 2 . J 822, 3 
4, 8 . . Jd 
4,26. . . J 463, 475 
4,29. eee 7, 20m 
5,1 . . J 8385; 163 
6,9,10 . «+. £187 





Page 

if 25 . e e e Jd 256 
i ee 

8, 13 . . . a 462 
SO. Fo es U 154 
Evopivs, Epist.98 . U 76 


2 | Excerpta THEODOTI; see 


Doct. Orient. 
FENESTELLA 


— MATERNUS, 


. . . . . 7 
Gaius, Inst., 1,55. J 517 
GaLLicanus, Avid. Cassius, 
2 ae 825 


=] 
Ow. 


4,5,6. . J 361 
HERACLEON . . Uw 
Hermas, Simil., 

9, 8,12-16 . 056, 57 

»! es: 12, 14 
HERMES TRISMEGISTUS, 
I 179-181 
Hesrop, Theog. 

718-720 . Pa: em | 
Homer, Iliad, 

3,130 . . Jd 412 

6,188. J 309 

» 008. J 309 

8, 13-16 . Pe) Son | 

o Ub 6 5a es ae 

24, 525,526 . J 309 

re 
» 40 se 5.) 3, See 
Homunizs on Luke U 79-80 
, 172-1 

Prologue to I 18 
Horace, Satires, 

2“ 2 = oS 172 

1,4, 140-148 . J 159 


1,9,61-72 J 67, 158, 
159 


Odes, 1, 25-28 . J 185 
Sec. Poem, ll. 42, 51 
“BR 6-5 a 
Epodes 
16, 10-26 . . J 185 
16, 25, 26, 31, 83. 
40-53,57. . J 424 
Ienatius, Martyrdom of, 
2 322 60S eee 
Magnes. 
9 (3, 8) . . e L 44 
Ephotane. 19 4, 1» * 
phesians, ‘ 
U 80 
Trenzvs, Cont. Heeres. 
1,52: i ioe 
1,5,4 . . . 64 
1, 7,1 . . U 124 
1, 10, 1 . . . I 194 
1, 27,3 . . . U 5 
3,1,1 Js eee 
3,6, 1 +) < see 
3,104... U0 21 
3,11,7. . 1184, 185 
3:11,8.. . 1184 
3, 18,6 . . . U 68 
3, 18, 7 U 60, 61, 68, 69 
3, 19,1 . . . U 150 


CITATIONS FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS. 181 








Page Page Page 
oe... U 387 28:5. cage OE a ree i 
et. . . 88 18,3,2-4 .. 1153 2° 618, 27,58; U 146 
$,32...U0 0 18.8.8). «dee i Ge iallities 
ae: ... OW 18,5,1-3 .I 154,155 2.18. 
mpae,e ee. » UO 69 18,6,1.. . J 112} Dialogue, 2, 67, 6 
fC, SS «ane ' 18,6,4,5 . J 99,621 5 . . J 852; U 16 
4, 15,1 . . . I 59 18, 6, 6 . tel , 8 . . . 
eat. ..32 8 86.9) 025: 4 Pika ki 
1032 ... 5.38 18, 7,2 . J 215 10, 11, 21, 23, 27, 43 
2 Gees oe e868. 5. ce 107 12 
4, 22,1 U 9, 28, 29, 37 87. ee we 2B 11 . J 348, 352; 1 206 
Si) 90.25... F200 oss os ee, 40 
4:27,2.. ..0 9,57 19,4,5. 108 17 . J 4B 
$8. . . Usa 19,5,1. .J 108, 113 23 Set a es 
854. os. AO 19.7.2.... 3 118 24. . 118 
4,33, 1-122 ,.. £. 40 19,7,.3,5 ..*J ll 30 . 0 2 
4, 33,12. . 028,38 19,8,1. .J 113,114 35 pa 
Siok .64i 90 20, 8, 11 ue 4 39 U 81, 95 
B.3,34).252.5 90 20, 9,1 I 156, 157 si cy eer 
Bid. ca. 8 20, 9,6 J 48... . 5 848, 474 
fn Ao 20,11,1 : . J 546 Pr es a5 9S 81 
5, 13,38. .. 089,90] Wars, 48 J 357; 1190, 192; 
6.46). ..- 0 8 2, 10,5 T 220 
5. 21,2. . U 80,81 ; 14, J 258, 546 50, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 
5, 21,3 U 69, 70, 71, 94 + as a I 192 
5,25,2. ... I 194 BR. og oF BBO 56. . . .J 851, 852 
5, 31,1 U 34, 38, 115 2° 19,5,9 . J 249, 547 Oy 20") a eee 
157 220.6... J 558 60,61. ; | 1192, 198 
5, 81, 2 130,171; U 2,219... J 566 GB) oe: oe a ORD 
23; 117, 128 eb eee a) ES ae ae ae 
5, 33,1. . -U 9,29 3,6,3 . - J 568s 554 ei i eae ae 
5.23.28... 1 32 3,7,2,3 . . J 564 80 . 181, 32; U 113, 
i ee ae 3.7386... J 549 114, R 
Pape... 2:88 S83... J 38 91 . 2 
Fragment . J 269 3.89 ... J 560 92 112,18: U8 
Isocrates . . . J 28,29 3, 10,1,4,10. J 558 ©. . S Atak 16 
Jerome, a Repritian ot 100, 101 U 34, 40 
Preface to Daniel J 347 4,3,12... J 558 102°. J 352, 858; U 41 
de Vir. Illust. 2,3 I 186 5, 5,1 eRe 408. co 35s Shae 
So hiting 2. G8 6,2,1 . . J 558, 559 105 , 041, 42 
Sa. al 6, 5,4 J 550 110 . J 460, 466 
eee ee 20,9,6. .. J 558 116 ee ae 
- . .. . U162} against Apion, AIS Ok eas a ee 
cont. Pelag.8. . I 186 522. . . J 882, 388 123 eel 
Epist. 69 ad Ocea- Me. . g  BAT TOA. se. s eR 
MRIS a. es seh 8 214 2,39 (al.40) . J 67 1G irs os 6: ue eae 
Comment. ad Tit. I 214 | Justin Martyr Tot 6, 6. 6c oe eee 
Comment. in Matt. Apology,1,4.. J 230 130: . J 358; U 156 
Bate. se ou 186 1,6 .. »«.. £190 | Juvenat, 
JOSEPHUS, 1,6,138 . . J 470,473| Satire, 
eese.. 5.5. £ 2 Bode ead a, -k 190 1, 155-157 J 246 
eee eee 1, 14 . © 192 3), 11-16. 39 
4,5 : . .J 547,552 1, 20 J 459 6, 186-189 J 513 
ee eee 1; 20, 57, 60 I 36 6, 229, 230 31 
Mec... J’ 604 1, 24 J 473 6, 542-552 J 39 
Bric. s,s + J 569 ) 9” Renee 13, 28, 29 J 119 
82-34 . J 555, 556, 558 1, 35 Il ” 96-106 J 318 
ot ka. s  0 569 1,44. . J 166; 167 | Lactantis, 
Meiers. .- J 658 1,48... .12,105| Div. Inst.1,4,5. J 348 
Beate... do S54 aa a 1,6 J 417,431, 482, 434; 
oes... St 858 1,61 . 148, 49, 205; T 180 
Eee a, 146 he? Saee T 
74... . .J 658, 554 1, 63 I 190, 191; U 67, 2° 11,16. . . I 180 
Antiquities, 146, 147 CS RRR - 
§ 2, Introduct. . J 461 i. Sarr eat”) aa. gee 
et. . C88 BOM. sa ar A ee sg eS 
14,7,2. . . J 85 2,2 . . . - I 198 4,7 . J 2380 


182 
Page 
4,9... . IT 180 
4 Bove VU 
4,13. . . 180 
4,15. J 444, 445 
4,27. eS a 
* 6, 8 J 348 
6, 25 . - I 18l 
7, 4, 18,18. I 181 
Ts 10% J 136, 459, 562 
i J 502 
»18. J 459, 460 
? 20 J 426 
: J 44 
de Ira, 
22. . J 402, 426, 438 
Death of Persecutors, 
- . J 502, 508 
LAMPRIAS, de Detect. Orae. 
7 - J2 
10, ie. J 288 
16 ne 3 288, 289 
3 A eae ee a 
29 ere 
88 . ees ga yi 


LampxiD10s, aot 
Ss J 


3, 10 . « od 895 
5,18 re 3 
10,238: : . S.177,178 
10, 4 ee oe 
21,62 . . J 896, 397 
22, 57 ae 
29, 10 J 397 
29.01 é J 898 
40, 19 . & 397 
40, 29 % J 401 
; - wo 119 
Lucan, Pharsalia, 
7, 909-815... J 55 
toman 4 Or a 2 


Lyons AND VIENNE, 
Letter from J ed I 47 


U 78 
Marcus nudiauiect? R 

de Rebus suis, 11 J 361 
MARTIAL, 

Epigram, 6,7 . J 
METHODIUS . Psa ®t 107 
Minvcius PEUX, | 

Octavius, 18 . U146 

rs x. hig ae eG 
29 . Ba tat task OY DOE 
NicreHonvs, 


. . Jd 70 
NovatrAN ~ ‘see Rule of Faith. 
ORIGEN, 
Fragment . . J 331, 332 
in Genes. 
15,5. . . U 24,127 
in Exodum, 
U 33 


7, ; 3 - Jd 846 
in Leviticum, 

SEE hee BO 
in Numeros, 

13,4. 2.7 7 & 





INDEX It. 
Page 
26, 4 - - U102 
28,2. J 483 


in Lib. L. Regnorum, 
U 16, 30, 114, 122 
Comment. (Select.) in 


Psalmos, 

Pa 3 ss A 159 
8. .U 29, 30, 34, 35 

17 - kes wc 

Yee oe OO 

83 . . e . iW 87 

48 3 ee a 
Comment, in Matt. 

fog oh ee oe pa 

OLE. s)..a. oe eee 
4Qs 180 es. eee 

12,48 . 188; U 50 

13,8... U8, 

pa Gass U 16 

16, 8 . U 88, 89, 91, 92 

16, 12 J 357, 858; UO 

145 
Series Comment. in 

Matthzeum, 

No. 90 . U 64, 65 
Comment. in Joan, 
Tom.1,384. .. U 84 

re re J 351 

LO; 20 J 262 

19,4. 85 

, 19 U 188 


Peel in Romanos, 9 
5; 1 U 83, a4, 62, 73, 76 
5, 4 108 
5. 10. 


'U 
p U 35 
6. 6 > U 60 
6,10. . . U 66, 67 
2 ere 
de Orat. 15. . J 470 
cont. Celsum, 

GRE i CK ee 
2,18. . . 1157, 158 
RAs. te eee 
2: 65 55's © hos ee 
STO & te 
> eS eee ee 
4,2... . J 465 
4,92. . .4J 461, 468 
5,4,6 . .J 469, 470 
6.2... .. 5 469 
6,75... T 40, 41 
2 Say k See Ria! Ona 8 
7,54. . .J 468, 469 
8; 13, 26. J 470 
8, 31, 82 J 466 

de Principiis, 
2,8,1 U 88 
2, 8,2 . U 88 
S, 11,8 .. 42.7 TAM 
4,216 . .U 108,104 
Onostws, 7,9. . . I %9 
ORPHEUS, Bseuvo . IT 179 
Papras. . I 31, 32, 203 


PAUSANIAS in Phocicis J 4389 
PHILO, against eee 


3 a) . , 


B im op gpezea none 





eer 


OOn 
gues~Be 


qt 


Cyeyeyeyeyey YEAS EY 





Page 


r: J 57 
10, 11, 14,15 5568, 8, 


J 571 
J 569 


71 
- 26, 27, 575 


576 


S35 
le oe) 


Cy 
ic 

or co 
Siteerd 


a 
: 
7 





CITATIONS FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS. 


Page 

Pury, Jon., ; 
a eT 
2,14. . . J 287 
3,38 . . . J 298, 294 
3211: | : 5283, 284 
4,3 . . . * d 318 
4,22: : | ¥ 292,293 
2s... ee 
8s. oD ee 
tee 
7 ee Re 
C2... . eat 
(eae J 314 
9713: : . J 818, 563 
9.17.5 . « J 204 
3. . . 5818, 314 
10, 28,29 | J 815, 316 
10,72. : . F820 

10, 85,86 . J 
10,97’ . . 3815, 317 


osiacon, 
(Preface to) . 

de Audiend. Poetis 
ae 
de Pythiew Orac. . J 438 

— Repugnant, 

88... . J 4, 46, 474 
<-¢) @ 41, 


ok ee 

5 sla Philos. 
PoLyoAaRP Martyrdom of, 

3,9 ° . J 464, #3 


19. 
Bpist. to Philippians 


4 
U 118 
Pomponius. . a aw” ae 
we vite Pythagor 
e Tre, 
- J 38, 39 
Poa or Sovowoy, 


8 Lis; 3 
97) 13,16. 
Psrupo "THADDEUS, 





Page 


QUST. ET RESPONS. AD 
ORTHODOX. 


Respons. 115. . U 77 
QUINTILIAN. 
4,1,18,19. . J 272 
16,1,91 . . 5276 
‘AT. . HzReEstum. — 
See Philosophumena. 
Rurinvus, Prolog. . J 269 
Rue or Farrx . U 71, 162 
SENECA, 

Nat. Quest. 

Preface, $s 11,12 J 59 
2, 82, 2, 3, J 62, 63 
2,45,1,2 . J 59,60 
Dae. 3s Se OO 
3, 29,3 cyan TRY g 
3,30,2-7 . J 56,57 

31,1-8,6-10 J 342, 

243 

dee 2 Fae Ay oi 

ar “78, 8-19,2 J op 
de Clementia, 

: 5; - « J 582 

de Tranquil. a 
a ee . J 210 

Se es 
de Brey. Vite. 

ad Polyb. Consolat 

mess 227 

meee ¥ J 212 

de Benefic 

2, 12, J 210 
3, 16, J 381 
3, 26, 1 J 582 
3, 27 J 451 
4,7,8 J 68, 64 

Epistles, 

7,2-7. .. J 75,76 
Belek ce eae OS 
AG GP 5T 1B 
14; 18 me. 1 
16,1. » J 49 
24,18 . wre (Gn 
31, 10 - J 4 
47, 3,4 e -2 oe 89 
63, . J 61 
65, 24 - « J 6 
65,26 . » J 61 
ee - Jd 49 
89,7. . - ws 49 
95, 23 . . Jd 91 
95, 31, 51, 52 J 82 
> 42 . J 2 
47 J 228 
102, 22,28. . J 61 
108, 21, 22 J 189, 472 
122, Ba J bill 
Fragment Fs 226, 533 
Pseudo Letters. . I 161- 
166 

SIBYLLINE ORACLES, 
Proem 2, line 48 U 103 





Page 
1, 1-6. . 5412 
1, 205-206 : . S411 
1, 275-277 . . J4ll 
1, 287- J 411, 412 
1; 293-304 J 41 
1, 324-400 . 1172-175 
1, 383, . 1186 
1. 885,386 . . 07137 
2", 6-83 J 128-125 
2° 34-1538. J 456-45 
2? 50, 51 J 24 
2° 165-170 J 239 
2° 214-297 . J 427-428 
2; 298-348 . J 428-431 
2°312. ...U172 
2: 817-888 . . U 164 
3, J 50 
3; 46-59 . | J 120,121 
3; 47-50, 652-656 I 207 
3; 63-92’. . J 188-140 
3; 108, 109 J 119 
3; 111-115 J 413 
3; 218-247 J 410,411 
By, co) eek 
3, 337-364 J 122, 123 
3, 419-425 J 419, 420 
3; 426-430 J 420 
3, 551-554 J 152 
o, GB Jd 487 
3, 573-583 J 422 
3, 616-623 . J 422, 423 
3; 652-662 J 436 
3, 663-701 J 144 
3, 715-723 J 423 
3; 732, 740, 748- J 423 
760, 766-7 70 424 
3, 762-765. . J 426 
3.771-11%5 . . J 424 
3° 776-782,787- } J 424, 
790, 798, 423 
3, 808-828" 432 
41-30 . J 407 
4, 24-27 J 43 
4; 31-39 . J 407, 408 
4,115-148 J 496, 497 
4,18... . 3 467 
5, 28-34 | J 498, 499 
5,85... « 0490 
5, 137-178 J 493-496 
5, 149, 150 J 252 
8.316... +3 eee 
5, 828-882, 842, 848 
J 127 
5, 361-885 J 497 
5, 447-452 J 323 
5, 484-508 . . J 824 
6, 1-15 I 175, 176 
6, 16-28 1 176 
’ 52, 58 J 419 
7, 108-112 . J 121,122 
> 123 J 61 
7, 182-138 J 38 
4-9. , J 408 
8, 50-67 . .J 129, 130 
8, 68-86... J 49 
8, 88-130 . . J 126 
8; 131, 132 J 127 


184 
Page 
8, 187-159, 

ai Mts 127-129 
8, 199-205 . . J 118 
8? 256, 25 I 4 
8? 256-323 | 1176-178 
8: 278 . T 174 
8.02. . 1) oir 
8° 310. U 136 
8? 324, 825 J 443 
8, 324-336 1179 
8,390, 391 . ; 

* 15-18 5 416 
97 144-155 T 419 
9°19. . 5 467 
97 163-170 49 


1 .. 5420 
11, 173-176 J 151, 152 
Srracg, Prologue to . J 384 


14 J 
2? 18 Soe ae 
3? 2-16 J 874, 37 
Oe OBR 
7.19 . . 585 
14,20; 15,7. J 50 
15, 1 J 48 
18, 15-17 J 875 

Sa J 35 
26, 1, 16, Ms S87 
297 2-11 J 27 

PAsk < J 383 

7 J 382 


vide GEA ee 
43,1,9,11,12 J 374 
Somnus Potyruistor, 8, 
420, 440 
SoLomon, Wisdom of, 
17-20 . J 388, 884 


5 
5 . . a. 50 
a Ue Ne 2 
WS Seaton ye 
10 . J 52,538 
13; 1,8, 9 J 58 
eS a & J 47 
14; 29-31. 3.35, 457 
B16. Sp ee a 
11 
17, 2,16,17 J 47, 484 
18,15,16 . . J 358 


eer Adrian, ‘ 
; . . . . . 1 
8,12, 18,17,19 J 325 
StTRABO, Geographica, 
17, 1, 48 J 175, 483 
SuETONIUS 
Ceesar, 20, 6... J 8 
Be. Se oe oA TA 


Augustus, 
31 J 165,166, 169, 176 
SG fk 3 ey Fe 
OR oy) ec a 
40 . J114,115; I 82 
y ? Miraee ta ae gas, Ie 
43 + . _ . Jd 72-73 
eR Pe SE eee Eee 
QB oscar eee) We 10, 4 
93 é ey BR 
94 . - od 145,146 





INDEX II. 
Page 
Tiberius, 7. . . J517 
li. '. J5ll, 612, 514 
ey ea ee 
- 26 . 7518 
27 . J 509 
eee ae 
29-32 . J 67, 74, 75, 
508, 509 
OE sates J 92 
i... eee 
* Sas J 515 
42 : J 510 
hy eee ee SS” 
53 . 3514, 529 
Saran Jl 
61... J 524, 526 
68 . Rik eeee 
69 . . S518 
72. . J 512 
73 . J 633, 534 
Caligula, 9 . J 199 
F eae . J 200 
‘Gs a eB 
16... J 94,212, 213 
18, 4 tow 
6). = eee 
21,22. . J 204, 221 
oS) eee 
% . . . F201, 202 
30. J 75, 529 
31 : 203; 
ye . J 20 
7. J 188, 139 
44 | .. 5201 
49 . . J 212 
as ae J 203 
Claudius, 11 . J 108 
es J 77 
Bs ee eae 
Famers Begs 
25 . . J 87, 228, 229 
So, 2 . 3214 
a. . J 241 
Nero, 20, 23, 24 J 494 
a5. 55S. ca ae 
57 . J 491, 492 
Vespasian, 
4 . J 244,550; 1204 
Bai ro. yaa 
6 J 271 
7 5 Tee a ee 
18 : J 273 
Bic Roe 
2... «J 278,274 
Titus,5 . . J 272 
6 ’ . o J 271 
7 ; J 80, 272 
ey os 
102, te, a ea 
Domitian, 
3 ene J 27 
8,9.°. . J 216,277 
9 e . I 
49) «ea Taek 
3... J 278,279 
15 . . Jd 








Page 

19 1. 6» wil Sree 

20 J 276, 278 

21 . . . . J 278 

re a 

de Clar. Rhetor. 

1 43-4 ee ee 
Sumas, Lexicon J 88, ott 
Supicrus Severus, Hist. 

ra, - 

2; 28, 905 2 ee 

> oo See 545 
TACITUS, 

Annals,1,1 . . J 506 
by ee . J 110 
1, 81-2 (2-3 eee 
a BE Ya . J 188 
1, 48. «. 22 AES 
1, bb 3 eee 
1,54 . ert xy! 
1, 56 . * . J 188 
1,738 . (\geeee 
jy f: aa J 506, 515 
1,75 .J 480, 505, 511 
1,76 . J 74, 85, 180 
1,77. . «cele 
1, 80 . . J 516 
+8... . J 110 
2,21 . . ‘secu ee 
" 2.48: 
2,47,48 . J 510,511 
360. . «ue eee 
2, 55 . wo 186 
2, 69,70,78. . J 187 
2, B45) « . J 517- 
2,85 . . J 188, 472 
2,86 . . J 190,191 
2°87... 5 eee 
S20, J 
3,132 0 Swe 
3, 15,16. J 198 
9 18 cs . J 510 
3, eae - J 194 
3, 21, 74,76 J 518, 514 
Ce meer 
3, 52,58. . J 89,90 
3, 54 . 7 . ° Jd a1 
3,55... J 89,90 
3, 59... A ke 
3, 60,68. . . J 196 
3, 10... = dave 
4,8,38- 3. 1) eee 
456) Toa J 506 
4,11... . Jaa 
4,15 . . -s Zao 
4,18: 3c). cae 
4,30 . . : wea 
4,31 . J 505, 507, 508 
4, 32 . ee 
4, 33 . J 541 
@° 00:42) s - Jd 478 
4, 52,57. . « J 686 
4, 58 : . od 520 
4, 62 : . J £4 
4,64 .. » SORE 
4, 67 é . J 529 





CITATIONS FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS. 


Page 
5,9 . . J 526 
5, 10 . . . J 523 
meats. Sea One 
6, 2 - J 527, 529 
3 + J 5387, 541 
6,5 .. J 582, 533 
a rag a 
6,12 .. J 166,447 
6,22... J19, 20 
: Sp ee as 5 8 
6G, 28,24. . . J 540 
O,ap . sos Oe 
i ee ee) 
6, 29 . J 506, 507, 530 
a i. on Pome Sarees 
6,38 . e J 586 
6,45 . J 511, 521 
46 J 509, 510, 515 
6,47 . . 2 681 
11,5. : J 478 
11, 15. J 225, 472 
| er a bY) 
12, 7, 36, 87,42 J 140 
BE 227 
12, 23 3 J 224 
2 i * ees J 229 
12, 53 . . . ‘i 88 
LR ee J 285 
12, 56,57 . J 77,78 
13,26,27 .. J 8&7 
er et, @ J 79 
pues « & 87, 88 
14,4245 .. J 88 
| ET ae J 246 
15,44 J 246, 247, 319 
Zocoe + . . U-: 87 
fore. ew es UST 
History, 
2 aoe . J 492 
: a Row iek ' 30 
Ta O << “ J 108 
, ae - d 21 
1, 37 « 3-108 
2,5 rig dell 
2, 8,9 - J 492 
2,78 . “us. 0 BBO 
A . J 125 
4,36. . J 478 
4,38. - J 12 
4,40. . bail 
4,52. . & 125 
4,81 . ; I 204 
moe, a 10, Stl 
5,9 FB, 810, 811 
5,10. J 549 
5,18 "J 310, 550 
de Moribus German. 
19 : J 293 
Agricola, 2 « . « J 288 
. . . . 541 
rr Boks. s of 204 
SN J 3il 
TaTiAN, Orat.4 . . U 146 
4,5,7. . . I 195 
13 . + . . . IT 194 
Mt Ge Je «© cL 24 





Page 
20. U 109 
Pcs I 15, 30, 36 
Ad: ~', I 67 
Eh er N, 
Apology, 
3 . . *. . . yi 230 
OS Rig iad J 280 
eee OS re eas 
DN ek pat ap met ae 
| gt ere ee arte eS 
Wags se ii: aioe Vo LAG 
21 . J 442;11,3, 105 
3... . UN, 
ye ae Wrxae AD. 
82 . . J 136 
49; % - U 108 
ad Nat. 1, 7, 8 I 56 
a’) eee I 68 
= ee J 413 
de Idololat, 1 . I 29 
et er vy U 122 
de Cor. Mil. 3 . U 77,78 
de Poenitentia, 12 U 


de Orat. 18 I 45, 46; UiT 
de Patientia,5. . U 106 
de Cultu Femin. 

Wijal ass. fo U 160 
ady. Judeos, 


185 


Page 
4, 19 . . . . U vg 
eats) a: ak a ee 
amy a ee ke 
4,34 .U 118, 121, 122 
se... OS 48 
mes - U 88 
OU eee Ae Sa pe 
mite . U 4, 59 
5, 12U 68, nb 105, 106 
5,17 U 59 
5,19 F U 91, 96 
cont. Gnost. Scorp. 
7 - U 58 
0 POs. See 
adv. Prax.38 U 145, 146 
16 . oJ 851; I 200 
de Fuga i in Persecut. 
i Vaw .U 4 
10 . U 7 
i AG U 96 
TESTAMENT OF THE TWELVE 
PATRIARCHS, 
Test. 3 - U 4 
10 - U 42 
THEODORET, 
Heeret. euele, - U 158 
U 105 


THEODOTY ; see Doct. Orient, 
THEOPHILUS, ad Autol. 


Ep | J 230 
|. eae é | I 4 
de ieee Heeret. 1,14. > I 67 
15 I 185, 186 2 ee J 409 
37. I 186 2.9. 10: I 72 
de Baptismo, etn as I 195 
11, 12, 18. - U 55 | Pe te aes | 
Eee I 49 2,18 . I 20, 195 
ady, Valentin. 2,22. I 194, 195 
Miacivss.s ot 8) 95 35,% U 70 
Ge tre - ee U 149 
8... . U128, 124 ye U 80 
de Anima, 7 ms ee 2, 31 J 416 
ee . U 99, 100 2, 36 J 408-410 
50 30 2,37 . I @ 
55 U 2, 10, 11, 30, 81, 3,7 J 341 
53, 99, 106, 111, 112 Oi Rr. kt bey VE 
, 127 So DE iat tee ee 
57 . U 120, 121 See 4 8 EIA 
58 U 121|Tmertus |. . . J 89 
de Resurrect. Carnis, TrasaAN J 303, 304, 315, 316 
2 . .U 91 157 | Ungnown Wrirers . J 450 
Ws U 122 | Vatertus Fraccus, 
25. - U100| Argonaut. 
42 , « U 99 1, 841-845 . U 164 
43. » U 111} Vateriws Maxims, 
44 , . U 36 1, 1,138 J 400 
47, 51, 54 .U 72 a 6 eee 
adv. Marcion, ASO Os ae. ae eae 
1, 14, 15 - » 0105 BS ae. eae 
2,10. - . U 64) Varro J 417, 482 
3,24 . J 421; U 100 | Vettes Partercotus, 
Pe ME ae ye . oe eae 518 
ae ae U 105 ¥ > a - J 524 
Sy + ICTORINUS OF PETTAW, 
Beal \ 5 333 ; 








4-10, 21-24, } 





z 
ry 
cee le 
gsbiee & @ 


eartisees 





»* 


INDEX IIL. 


WORDS AND SUBJECTS. 





Judaism at Rome is designated by J Indirect Testimony by I, and Underworld 
Mission by U, prefixed to the paging. 
Words marked with an * will be found also in Index I. or Index II. 


Assor, E., J v, 4; Iv. 

Abdel Lenarin Kasen, I 151. 

Abdus, I 160. 

Abdus, the oo; <" We 

Abel, I 11 

7 neg i Ose" 50" 16 
pseudo SD sisncios of 
with Jesus, 4, 6, 149-150; 


12, 31 59, 192, 199; Tis! 
prought | to lif fe, I 148 ; 
saved without baptism, 
U we 161; he rejected, 
according "to Marcion, 
Christ’s teachings below, 
5; punished in and liber- 
ated from the Underworld 
according to the Mani- 
cheans, 27, 28; trans- 
ferred, according to the 
Valentinians,out of heaven 
to the Middle Space, 21, 


22. 
Abraham’s bosom, J 430; 
a 97, 99,102; placed out- 
de the’ Underworld by 
Tertullian, 121, 122 
aera T 151. 
Achaia, J 85, 204, 492, 564; 


Acheron, J 324, 414. 


Adan 3: 89, 120, 203. 
Acts of Pilate,* J 842; Tv. 
is a4 50, 86, 87 89) 
142, 143, 145, 206; 
36,76, 83, 136, 158, 156; 
fs sachin of Christ’s 
personal appearance, I 42. 
Acts a a gg *J 44, 
70.1 1, 236, 252, 467; 
I a1. aT 62; 85, 90. 








Adam, J 841, 351, 483; I 44, 
59, 137; in the seventh 
heaven, U 20,53; Origen’s 
idea of his fall and its con- 
sequences, 24, 103. 

Adamantius, 13 189, 

Adas, I 140. 

Addas, I 140, 141. 

Adondi, J 428. 

Adrana, J 183. 

Adriatic Sea, J 129. 

Adumbrations, U 17; on 
Jude,* 17; on Peter,* 86, 
152. 

#acus, J 572. 

Aailitian tribute, J 72; I 62. 

iduans, J 115. 

Aigean Sea, J 5238. 

Zilia Capitolina, J 326. 

Amilianus, J 289. 

Emilius Paullus, J 542. 

Emilius Rectus, i. 510. 


Ainaria, J 518. 
Hineas, J 150, 160, 403, 409, 
418, 427, 448, "452, 453, 


467 ; I 19; U 164 64; de- 
picted as a monotheist, 
J 404, 417; seven years’ 
wandering of, 418; escape 
of, 419; wife of, 419 ; the 
chaste, vi, 4538. 
JEneid; see Virgil. 
nobarbus, J 12. 
frac tain hain 868 ; I 50, 
Zischylus, Pseudo, J 338. 
ZEsculapius ; see Esculapius. 
Afranius Dexter, J 315. 
Africa, J 125, 275, 387, 501, 
568; I 17, "61; Jewish in- 
fluence in, J 1b. 
Agamemnon, J 10, 405. 
Agdistis, J 397. 
Age-games, J 119. 
Age, golden, J 425; sixth, 
~ ei ti 118, 407, 450 ; 


eee a heh of, J 119, 120, 
451; seven, 118, 421, 480; 





ten, 118; two, of Just 
Men, I 59; U ll, 56; 
middle, I 206. - 

Age-song, J 135, 160. 

Agra, I i 

Agricola, > 279, 284, 541, 
561. 


Agriculture, J 452. 

Agrippa, Castor, I 187. 

Agrippa, Herod, Jun., J 235, 
237, 272, 330, 546, 547, 
548, 550, 657; I 34; his 
character, J 560 ; resides 
with Claudius, 113, 235, 
237 ; as hostage, 113. 

Agrippa, M. Vipsanius, J 18, 
161-165, 542; a leader of 
the aristocracy, 163; fra- 
ternizes with Herod, 116; 
lauded by Philo, 98. 

Agrippina, daughter of Ger- 
manicus, sister of Caligula, 
and mother of Nero, J 77, 
bi 138-140, 227; I 69, 


Agrippina, wife of Germani- 
cus, J 191, 4, 524, 528, 
529, 536, 538, 539 ; heads 
a rebellion against Tibe- 
rius, 192, 528. 

Agrippina; see Vipsania, 

Aidoneus, J 440. 

Ajax, J 530. 

Alabarch, J 84, 85. 

Alani. J 564. 

Albinus, I 157. 

Alexamenus, J 330 

Alexander (Alexamenus ”), 


J 330. 

Alexander Lysimachus, ala- 
barch or ea at Alex- 
andria, J 85, 102-104, 
206, 217, 222, 500. 

Alexander, son of Simon, I 


Alexander, the coppersmith, 
J 250, 251, 381. 

Alexander the Great, I 165. 

Alexander, Tiberius, J 99, 


188 


Alexandre, J 52, 152, 252. 

Alexandria, J 96, 1) 
118, 115, 116, 125; 137, 206, 
207, 214, 216, 217, 219, 222° 
272, 322° 832 a "381, 394, 


gious on nine ‘power 
of the Jews there, J 40; 
Jewish quarter there, 41) 
85, 106, 565; chief school 
of Egypt, a seat of i imagina- 
tion and taste, 54, 374, 519. 

Alexandrine Gnostics ; 3 see 
Valentinians, Theosophic 
Gnosties, and Basilides. 

Alexandrine views, J 334, 
336 ; Jews or J udaism, 70, 
108, 107, 499, 573; Gnos- 
tics, 358, 356 ; Christians, 
836, 578; system of astron- 
omy, 70 ; populace, 220; 
conspirators, 105 ; culture, 

7 ‘ 


Alexandrine School (of 
Catholics), U 11, 238. 

Alexandrines, J 122, 544; 
sypagogues of, at Jerusa- 
lem, 24. 

Allegheny College, J 384. 

Allegory, J 130, 346. 

All-men, meaning of, I 58. 

Allotted $05, J 150; U 
117, 118. 

All-Ruler, I 52, 177, 197. 

Alpheus, I 15 8. 

Amalek, J 345. 

Amalekites, J 444. 

Ambassadors, J 86. 

Am. Cyclop eedia, J 43, 
140, 141, 370, 371, 386, ser" 
390, 399, 475, 518, 519, 575, 
576, 579, 580. 

American Indians, J 376. 

Americans deemed black, 
J 386. 

Ammon, oracle of, J 175. 

Amos, Ili 

Ananias, J 467. 

seo are high-priest, J 550, 


Ananias, prefect, I 6. 
Ananias, the courier, I 149, 


150. 
Ananus, J 558; I 156; the 
younger, 156, 157. 
Anastasius, I 218; U 182. 
Anaxarchus, . 
Ancestral customs, J 36, 
153; usage, 507. 
Anchises, a4 409, 421, 422. 
Ancient of Days, i 260, 
487. 
Ancient usages or customs, 
4 Bos 72, 78, 88, 115, 171, 


Ancyra, J 164. 
Androcydes, U 22. 
Angeeus, I 140, 141. 





INDEX III. 


Angel, I 199; Apostate, U0 
61, 69, 71, 90. 
Anes ¥ Christian Church, 


Angel of Death, U 58, 84. 

Angel, Wicked, "U 42. 

Angels, I 24; evil, 28, 26; 
substance of, fire, J 45, 
46; whether’ deified, 469 ; 
fallen, 482, 488 ; punish- 
ment of, 484, 485. 

Anglican Church, U 135, 
168, 169. 

Aniensis, Samuel, J 490. 

Annas, high-priest, J 463 
I aor 108, 116, 117, 118, 


Anne, Queen, J 479. 

Annihilation, J 27, 361; 
U 148, 157. 

Anthon’s Classical Diction- 
ary, 

Anthony ; see Antony. 

Antias Valerius, J 401. 

Antichrist, J 117, 187, 140, 
141, 222, 502,.503; I 34, 
385; U 30, 189; cp. Beliar. 

Anti- -Gnosties, Ultra; see 
Catholics. 

Anti-Jewish feeling under 
Hadrian, J 

Antinous, J 325. 

Antioch (Asia Minor), J 302. 

Antioch (Syria), J 220, 321, 
546; 111, 92; equal rights 
of Jews there, J 41. 

Antiochus Epiphanes, J 247, 
261, 311, 347. 

Antiochus, King, J 398. 

Antiochus” of Commagene, 
J 84, 113 

Antiochus, teacher, J 368. 

Antipater, ¥J 41, 61. 

Antiquities, Jewish, T 158. 

Antiquity, J 9:1 iii, 18, 
198 ; relative, of Judaism 
and Paganism, J 35; 
spurious reverence for, 36 ; 
factitious reverence for, 
818; appealed to, 88, 195. 

Antislavery, J 231, 234, 4738. 

Antitheses, J 3849; U 68- 


71, 90. 

Antium, J 119, 214, 522. 

Antonia, J 99, 100, 102, 112, 
181, 217, 27 4, 520, 530. 

Antonia, tower "of, J 552. 

Antoninus, Marcus,* J 65, 
81, 82, 360-362, 545, 563, 
564, 590 ; T 63, 72, 76, 80; 
190, 194, 197, 198 : relief 
of his army by a shower, 
J 39; a letter of, 
A as 167, 1 

Antoninus Pius, J 81, a 
831, 359, 360, 564 ; I8 
190, 198. 


Antonius, Julius, J 164. 
Antony, J 73, 120, 155, 156, 





424, 520; his defeat, 6, 18, 
99, 109 : ’ did he favor Ju- 
datsm ? "156. 

Ane son of above, J iv, 


Anubis, J 548. 
Apes or Apameia, J 33, 


Apelles, I 184, 185, 187. 
Apicata, $ B38. 
Apicius, J 
Apion, J 108 108, 247, 311. 
Apis, J 115, i 272, 
Apocalypse} see Revelation. 
Apocrypha, J 28, 130, 327. 
at etic N. Test, is "1161, 


Apollinarians, U 1381. 

Apollinarius, I 

Apollo, J 18, 26, 128, 166, 
204, : 4 "440, 446 ; 


ordered to the ‘Underworld, 


168. 
Apollodorus, J ri 417, 433. 
Apollonius, J 3l 
Apollos, J ‘954; 4 214. 
Apophthegmata, J 308. 
ag for apostate angel, 


Apostles’ Creed, U 52, 181; 
oe views of, 164, 169- 


Apostles, Teaching of the 
Twelve, I 218. 
es twelve fountains, 


Apostolic Age, T 8, 48, 50, 58. 

Apostolic Constitutions and 
Canons, J 344 

Appius Appianus, J 511. 

Apronicanus, 

Apronius, J 513, 514; 1165. 

Apuleia Varilia, é 50D. 

Aqueduct, J 516. 

Aquila, J 231, 381. 

Arabia, J 185, 370, 564. 

Arabia Petraea, J 143. 

Arabs, J 370. 

Araches, J 124, 

Archedemus, J 41. 

ee I 147; see. Dis- 


Aresenidn I 209, 212. 
Archippus, Flavius, J 302, 
303. 


Architects, J 368, 588. 
Archives, secret, y 442 
Ardesianes, U 21. 
Ardis, J 484, 
Aretas, I 154, 155. 
Argonauts, J 418. 
Argus, I 180. 
Aristo, J 41, 433. —. 
Aristocracy, Ecclesiast., J 
Aristocracy, Gallic, pris 115, 
Aristocracy, Jewish, J 220, 
252; I 36, 55, 154; sym- 
pathizes with patricians, 


iP ee oe ee oa 








ted eee ee 


WORDS AND SUBJECTS. 


J 96, 106, 206, 222; their 
revolt at "Alexandria, 108, 
206; permitted in Judea 
to suppress rebellion, 548 ; 
falsifies history, 138, 221. 
Aristocracy, rene J boat 
208; 1 14, 34, 35, 54, 
154, 156; dominant =the 
Augustus, J 18, 72, 89, 93, 
108, 160, 453 ; under Clau- 
dius, 75, 85, ’ 87, 99, 107, 
6, 222, 28 : under Titus, 
80. b74 ; under Trajan, 10, 
81, 320 ; under Mare An- 
tonine, 65, 362 ; advocates 
ancient usage, 385, 318; 
falsifies history, 138, 221; 
caused the dark ages, 387 ; 
ogeragy su eee by, 
94, 165, 167, 369, 433, 
i unfriendly to Juda- 
ism, 5-11, 28, 116, 149, 
447 ; and to Greek culture, 
5-14, 86-89; brutality of, 


75-18, 284-286 lots re- 
bellion, 106 09, 186, 
ig, 281; pun- 


jened et Domitian, 282 ; 
decries medical science, 13. 

Aristophanes, J 399 
368, 382. 883, 


Aristotle,* J 
425. 
Ark, who shut its door, 
850, 351 ; , 200. 
Be er J 118, 185, 491, 
Armies, standing, J 380; 
209. 


17, 382, 
109, 114, 149, 160. 
soap the Egyptian, 


J 39 gi 
Arrian, J 41 
Arruntius, ao 181,592. 
Artabanus, J 185, 492. 
Artemidorus, J 288, 284 
Artemion, J 321. 


, 546 
Arulenus Rusticus, J 283, 
Ascension of Isaiah; * see 


saiah. 
Asceticism, J 335. 
Asclepiades, J 302. 
Asia, J 142, 156, 163, 164, 


859, 
884, 406, 407, 492, BL 180 
508, 572; I "5b, 151 
208; Jewish influence in, 
J 15, 16, 69, 72. 

Asia, a "province i in Asia Mi- 
nor, J 24, 30, 147, 197, 
238, 251, 257, 301; 
I 62; seven churches of, 


J 258, 262, 263 





Asia Minor, J 1, 30, 41, 54, 
117, 148, 154, 155, 963, 91. 
381, 382, 394, 397, 398, 4938, 
571, 587 ; I 17, 61, 74, 77, 
212’. a seat of Jewish in- 
fluence, J 1, 41, 493; and 
of human improvement, 
80, 867, 381, 587; Stoies 
C7) inate there and in 
Syria, 41, 54, 571; earth- 
quakes in, 117, 143 ; 
Ceesar’s refuge place, 154; 
Herod’s visit to, 163. 

Asians, synagogues of, J 24. 

Asiarchs, TI 62. 

Asiatic calendar, J 253. 

Asinius Gallus; see Gallus, 

Asinius Pollio ; see Pollio. 

Asmodeus, U 58 

— Caius Nonius, 


Assaracus, J 419, 

Assembly (an zon), I 50. 

Ass-head, J 3880; alleged 
worship of, 311. 

Association applied to Chris- 
tians, J 474, 

Assos, J 41. 

Assyrians, J 39 

Astrologer, J igs Tdentified 
with Chaldean, 39, 

Astrologers, J 49 91, 

Astrology, J 87-40, 195, 518, 


Astronomers, J 368, 587. 

Astronomy, 5 370. 

Asylums, J 196. 

Atarneus, J 368. 

Atheism, J 279, 306, 307, 
819, 368, 370, 389, 478; 


I 5b. 

Atheists, J 307, 8317; E 55; 
term for monotheists, J 10, 
808, 319, 473; for heath- 
ens, 473 ; how "Plato would 
punish them, 575, 576. 

Athenagoras,*’ J '44, 

418; I 15, 30, 52, 53, 6" 
72, 75, 78, 194: U ll, 109, 
119, 167, 168. 

Athenais, J 446. 

Athenians, J 464. 

Athenodorus, J 18, 41. 

Athens, J 42, 115, "931, 238, 
235, 330, 368, 373, 394. 

Athlete; see Christ. 

Athletes, J’ 292. 

Atilius, J 74. 

Atilius Buta, J 511. 

Atilius Serranus, J 896. 

Atonement, vicarious, I29; 


U 91. 
Attalus, J 11, 257, 397, 398; 
I 63 


Attica, J 5238. 

Atticus, Curtius 4 520. 

Atticus, M. V., 

Augury, J 40, “BS died out, 
198; re- established, 169, 





189 


227; in Asia Minor differs 

from Roman, 155. 
Augustan age, J 369. 
Tiare is * J 58, 387, 450, 

504; I 48; U is, 27, 28, 


Augustulus, J 387. 
Augustus, J 146, 292 ; 
82; high priest, iG 
165 ; a tool of va 
72, 108, 160-170; expels 
foreigners, 12, 13; recedes 
from patricianism, 175- 
178; division of provinces 
under, 838, 184 ; censorship 
of writings established by, 
93; Jewish council insti- 
tuted by, 99; forbids for- 
eign dress, 114; _ his 
victories deemed calam- 
itous, 208; his respect for 
Tiberius, B07; death of, 
517 ; deification of, 7, 179, 
197, 282, 320, 505, "536 ; 
Tiberius ignored it, 518, 
535; temple dedicated to, 
100, 518; disrespect for 
his divinity, 515; I 54; 
statue of, J 519. 
Augustus, a title, J 518. 
ee, priestess of, J 
2 


Aulus Gellius, J 179. 
Aurelius, Pius, J 511. 
Auspices } see ‘Augury. 
Australia, J 389. 
Autolycus, I 194. 
Aventine Hill, J 380. 
Axionicus, U 21. 
Azazyel, U 58. 

Azrail, U 58. 


BABEL, J 119, 350, 412, 416. 
Babylon, J 128, 186, 405, 
2, 446. 

Babylon cbpoyirmge Rome, 
J 131, 136, 265, 267, 328; 
494, 501. 

Bacchus, I 18, 22; a term of 
some Stoics for Supreme 
Being, J 68. 

Bacis, Di 454-459 ; I 72. 

Baiz, J 189, 205. 

Balbus, argument of, that 
God exists, J 59; earnest- 
ness of, 64. 

Baptism, I 48-50; of Jesus, 
49,175; whether essential 
to ‘salvation, U 55, 56, 119, 
161; gives control over 
evil spirits, 43, 98; of the 
departed, 55-58. 

Baptism, vicarious, I 48; 
into the spirit, 206. 

Baptismal formula, I 50, 88, 
204-206. 

Barabbas, I 87, 88, 125. 

sc 37 tea J 59, "488, 562 ; 


190 


Barr Cochba, J 314. 
Barnabas,* J 150, 444, 471; 
I 9, 11, 21, 178, 198, 198 ; 

ee. ‘of ‘44, 178 ; 
37, 86, 94, 118, 


Barnevelat, I 208. 
Bartholomew, T 186, 187. 
Basilides, J 331, 332, 336 ; 
I 185, 187; U "18, 130. 
Bassus, "Betilienus, J 213. 
Bassus, proconsul, J 316. 
Bassus, the centurion, J 101. 
Beast of the Apocalypse, 


J 499. 

Beausobre, U 98, 102. 

Bechuanas, J 389. 

Beelzebub, J 218, 219; I 
109, 11 15; 

Beesly, Prof., Jv. 

Belgium, 52. 

Belial or Beliar, J 117, 187- 
139, 239 ; T 34, 35; U 58; 
cp. "Berial and ‘Antichrist. 

Belief, its origin, J 388-3891. 

Bellerophon, I 23. 

Beloved, the, J 500. 

Benedictine monks, J’ 870. 

Berenice, J 99, 272, 548, 
550, 552, 557, 7, 560. 

Berial, J "499, 500 ; I 169; 
ep. Beliar 

Berlin, J 366, 867 ; I 210. 

Bercea, J 233: 

Beronice, I 124. 

Berosus, J 337, 449; daugh- 
ter of, 342 449 
Berytus, J 548 ; 

games at, 


Bethlehem, I 115, 126, 171, 
—— Repository, I 151, 


public 


52. 
Bibliotheca Sanct. Patrum., 
546. 


J 

Bibliotheca Theolog., I 151. 

Bibulus, Caius, J 90. 

Bielefeld, I 209. 

Bingham, U 77. 

Bishop, I 2138, 214. 

Bithynia, J 41, 297, 300, 315, 
818, 520, 327. 

Bithynians, J 152. 

Black-mail, J 478. 

Blesilla, I 189. 

Blesus, J 514. 

Blandus, Rubellius, J 521. 

Blayney, J 435. 

Bleeck, U 171. 

Blood, supposed shower of, 

124 ; ; eating of, forbid- 

den by Jews, J 15; I 46- 
48; and b "the Oriental 
Church, + 15; contains 
- soul, I 46; U 87, 88, 


Bondsman, Bondsmen, I 64, 
65 ; term for Jews, I 471; 
of God, 231, 268, 471. 





INDEX IIL 


Bonn, J 182. 

Book of divine purposes, 
J 2638. 

Books burned, J 93, 401. 

Books of Numa. Pomp., 


J 401. 

Books, the, J 395. 

Books, the’ written, I 112. 

Boone, exch J 3. 

Boston, I 212 

Botta, J 177. 

Boulogne, J 204. 

Brahmins, J 383. 

Braunsberg, T 211. 

Brennus, J 397. 

Bride, meaning daughter-in- 
law, x 

Bridgman, Dr., J 3. 

Britain, J 59, 241, 278, 288, 
826, 329, 491, 541. 

Britons, J 564 

Brutus, J 86, 156, 284, 514. 

Bryant, T 211, 212. 

Buddhism, J 37, 890, 572. 

Buffon, J 363. 

Bull-fights, 4 79. 

Burges, H. B., J 579. 

Burial alive, “5 897. 

Burmah, J iv. 

Burmese converts, U vi-vii. 

Burning, punishment by, I 
211, 212. 

Burrhus, J 79, a 227, 241. 

Bushmen, 

Buta, J 511. 

Byron, J 363. 

Byzantine Harmonist, J 126, 
127, 422, 450. 


C&CILIUS, ar J 502. 

Ceecina, x 181 

Ceelius Sabinus, J 171. 

Cenis, J 278, 274, 520. 

Ceere, T 896. 

Ceesarea, J 16, 258, 545; I 
186; city government in 
hands of Jews, J 546, 547, 
552; public games at, 81. 

Cesar, Julius,* J 11, 72, 

, 485; I 80; remod- 
elled the Senate, J 5: 
gave citizenship to phy- 
Sicians and teachers, 1 
planned public library, hs 
funeral of, attended by 
Jews, 6, 154; causes acts 
of the Senate and people 
to be published, 93 ; equal 
rights under him, 160 ; ap- 
plication to him of Sibyl- 
line teaching, 155, 487; 
writings of, suppressed, 
98; his account of wild 
beasts, Uv 

Ceesars, 3738 ‘136, 138. 

Ceesonia, J 201. 

Caiaphas, J 463 ; I 107, 108, 
116, 117, 118, 135, 138, 147. 

Cain, U 5, 7. 





Caius, a Christian, J 256. 


Caius, grandson of Augus- 


tus, J 115, 175. 

Calani, a term for philoso- 
phers, J 382. 

Calendar, Roman, regulated 
by Julius Cesar, J 151; 
Greek and Roman, 66; 4 
Macedonian, % 555. 

1 a 75, 94 "100, lll, 


116 
5, 85, 5 BL, tbs, 156, 165 ; 
hee prosecutions for un- 
belief, J 9; abolishes public 
games, I 68 ; poli tical truce 
effected _ J 9; contemns 
Homer, 0, 203 ; convicts 
Senate from its’ own rec- 
ords, 8, 206, 534; Senate 
plots against him, 105, 106 ; 
his death demanded, 108; 
- friend to patricianism, 
void of arrogance, 

20s sisters of, 206, 209, 
227, 448 ; his alleged statue 
for the Temple, 138, 
216, 235; plans cade 
of government to Alexan- 
dria, 214. 

Calvin, I 188; U 168. 

Calvinists, German 


and 
Dutch, U 167; French, 
1 


68. 
Cambridge, I v, 218. 
Camoene, J 39 
Campania, F3 243, 275, 522, 
od ; earthquakes in, 19, 


Campbell, Geo., J 48, 486; 
T 188, 214. 

Campus Martius, J 77, 110. 

Cannx, J 396. 

Capena, J 39. 

Capernaum, J 3383; U 6; 
typifies this earth, "24, 25, 
Capito, Jurist, J 171, 172, 

214, 481 ; i: 81. 


.| Capito, consul Te 508 ; I 164. 


Capitol, J 140, 204 , 226, 228, 
278, 402; burnt, "142, "401. 

Capitolinus, J ulius, * J’ 362. 

Cappadocia, J 397, ’548. 

Caprese, Capri, J 112, 518, 
520, 522. 


Caprineus, J 522. 

Captivity, teachings before 
the, J 391; teachings af- 
ter the, 392, 

Capua, ¥ 536. 

Caractacus, J 139, 140, 

Carnutum, TI 167. 

Carolina, J 234. 

Carpocrates, I 187. 

Carthage, J 152, 224. 

Carthaginians, J 115, 397. 

Carus, J 279. 

Cary, Prof., J v. 

Caspian Sea, J 489. 

Cass, J 330. 








WORDS AND SUBJECTS. - 191 


Cassandra, J 530. Charicles, anyeeens J 512.; Nero’s persecution of, 245 
*U 78. Charies II., - 948, 252, 253, 280, 495, 
ea a wl Charleston, I 211. 546; expelled from Rome, 
Cassius, J 86 U &8, 156, 157, Charlestown, I 218. 818 ; terms applied to, 808, 
284, 514, Charmus, , (Charinus), 126. | 478; I 64, 55, 66, 71; 
Cassius, Avidius, J 361. Chemosh, terms used by, 56-58; 
Cassius, Betillinus, J 214. Chests of os J 401. charges against, 18, 19; 
Cassius, Dio; see Dio Cas- | Children, J 8 misrepresented by Tacitus, 


sius, 
Cassius, Severus, J 94. 
Castor, the god, J 202, 221; 
I 168. 


Catechumen, J 336, 348. 

Catharine, J 578. 

Catholics, I 261, 344, 357; I 
21,171; U 4, 1, 139, 156 ; 
semi-Jewish, ip 347 Or- 
thodox, or ultra Anti- 
Gnostics, U 7-11, 53, 89, 
116-122, 156, 157 ; "Liberal- 
ists, or ‘Heterodox, J 347; 


3i, 33 ; U > ’ ] ? 
114-116, 156, 157 
Catiline, J 145, 1 iat. 


likes Gree culture, at) 
Cattians, J 183. 
Catulus, J 402. 
Celer, Propertius, J 511. 
Celsus, A. Cornelius, J 589. 
Celsus, Juventius, J 278 
Celsus, * Te ag ap of Chis 

469, 470 et 

pth; “"Y 11, 75,115; U al 


Celsus, the father, a lawyer 
J 171. ¢ ; 


Celsus, the son, J 171. 

Celsus, a eam J 589. 

- Censors 

Seerchip. of dress, J 114, 
100; of writings, 98, 1 165, 

opposed by Tiberius, 

505; of press, 95. 

Clesiewaiali Ode, J 451. 

Cephas, J 256; I 214. 

Ceremonial law ; see Law. 

Ceremonial observances, by 
Jews, J 24, 67, 466, 467 ; 
by heathens, 25. 

Cerdo, J 331. 

Ceres, J 115. 

Cerinthus, I 186, 187. 

Certus, Publicius J oe 

Cheerea, J 182, 21 

cence, si 41. 

Chains of darkness, J 484. 

Chalcis, egg 118. 

Chaldea, J 123, 446, 449. 
Chaldean, a ore for 
astrologer, J 39 
Chaldzean history 5 rh 103, 
Chaldeans, J 38, 3 


169, 464. 
Channing, J 18, 363, 364, 
365. 


Chaotic matter, behavior, 


temper, J 335, 
Charicles, J 567. 





China, J iy, 3. "384, 886, 890. 
Chios, J 
Chrestos, Chrestus, 


28, 41, 402. 


Chris- 
tus, J 229, 280; I 55. 
Christ, J 426, 427, 441, 448, 
5 F ‘459, 469-471 ; 
disuse of term, I 75, 76, 
194, an A) second coming 
of, J 285 » 255-270; 
an gon, { 50; produced 
subsequently to geons, J 
354; called Liberator, U 
18; Ransomer (compare 
Ransom), 42, 86; Helper, 
42; Athlete, I 63, U 78; 
Vindicator Q), see Vindi- 
cate, Vindicator ; Re- 
deemer of the flesh, 91; 
the Beloved, 36; the Arch- 
physician, 46; needed pre- 
cursors below, 44-47 ; his 
incarnation concealed from 
Satan, 78-84, 91, 92; over- 
reaches Satan, 81; wres- 
tles with Satan, 68, "69, 92; 
and his powers, 46; his 
victory , 58, 66-78 ; its con- 
sequences, "92, 94; his fear 
of the conflict, 64-66 ; not 
saved by his own power, 
40, 41; is the medium of 
liberation from death, 40, 
92, 112, 126; his mission 
to the Underworld saves 
mankind,.24, 127; his ran- 
som paid to Satan, 88-92; 
his offering to God, 85, 86; 
his sacrifice or self-sacri- 
fice, 85 ; object of his death, 
28-31, 91; obliged by his 
human nature to die and 
o to the Underworld, 30- 
Bt ; opens the way to Para- 
dise, 46-47; leads man 
back to it, 115; how he 
reconciles man to God, 92- 
97; deemed by some hu- 
man, 145; by others the 
special Deity of the Old 
Testament, 9, 22, 94, 145- 
147 ; see Jesus. 

Christian, Christians, J 24, 
239; blamed for Jewish 
excitement, 230-233, 288, 
245-248, 351, 258, 330 ; 
their ascent to heaven, 
235-287 ; suffered from con- 
servatives, 237, 288, 259, 
830, 560; recalled (?) by 
Domitian, 280; . whether 
expelled by him, 280-282 ; 





J 246, 247, 311; Pliny’ 
persecution of, 299, 38 6; 
taunted with worshipping 
an ass-head, 311; numer- 
ous in Bithynia, 316, 817; 
were they the only Gentile 
monotheists there? 318; 
their various appellations, 
319; persecuted under 
Trajan, 820 ; attribute Jew- 
ish documents to heathen 
authors, 836-342, 489 449 ; 
forgeries by, 842, "442, 458 ; 
views of Sunday and Sab- 
bath, 70, 289, 240, 348, 
859; their extravagant 
use of the Old Testament 
in the second century, 
344-346, 500; change 
touching thisin the third, 
847, 348 ; exceptional ones 
deem Jesus the Deity of 
the Old Testament, 349- 
859; persecuted under 
Mare Antonine, 361, 363; 
sympathized with by Dio 
Chrysostom, 420; why 
they appealed to Sibylline 
verses, 485 ; Sibylline com- 
positions by, 441-446, 
meaning of certain words 
as used by them, 460-475 ; 
their views of Nero’s re- 
turn, 499-504; Gibbon’s 
representation of, 136, 441, 
442, 562; many avoid of- 
fice-holding, 16; posture 
of, in prayer, 343 ; use al- 
legory, 346, 347 ; main 
body of, deemed the ritual 
law needless, 24, 467. 
Christians Alexandrine 
254, 3874; Syrian, ae 
Oriental, 344, 359 ; I 45 } 
Western, J 343; x 45; 
Catholic, see Catholics ; 
Gnostic or heretical, J 


831-386. 
Christians, Gentile, J 254, 


255, 266, 344, 357, 859 ; 
T8, 9, 10, 43, 46, 47. 
Christians, Jewish, J 20, 


a5e 135, a 289, 250, 254, 


ultra Jewish, J "256; did 
not use Paul’s writings, 
254. 

Christians, race of, J 464; 
monotheistic association 
of, 222, 223, 464. 


192 


semi-Jewish, J 
70, 120, 186, 150, 231, 35h, 
335, be "348, "491; 
0, 31, ; definition of 
term, J 450. 
Christian assemblies copied 
. synagogues, J 20, 177, 178. 
Christian Examiner, J 4; 
U 16, 51. 
Christian monotheism,J 462. 
. Christian records, destroyed 
by the patrician party, 
J 


95. 
Christian Register, J 379, 
389 


Christianity, J 229, 322, 
9, 370; at Alexandria, 
548; its influence under 
Hadrian, 65; preparation 
for, by. Judaism, 394 ; 
regarded as a part of 
Judaism, 226 ; supersedes 
Judaism, 3861; was it 
termed Foreign supersti- 
tion ? 30. 
Chronicon ; see Eusebius, 
Chronological Tables, J 325, 
449; of Roman Hist. , 561. 
Chronology by emperors, 


489, 4 

Chrysippus, J “e 42, 46, 47, 
49, 60, 61, 1 

Chrysostom,* G 77. 

Church and State, J 369, 370. 

Church, Discipline, I 73, 1a! 
authority, 206; U 62, 
141. 

Church, Greek, Latin, East- 
ern, 

Churches, Gentile, Latin, I 


Cicero, M. T.,* J 7, 54, 64, 
121, 145, 173, 272, 290, "993° 
334, 367, 368, 416, 434) 
438, 447, 533, 542, 562; 1 
62, "76, 7, 176, 180, 190 ; 
U 53; on gifts to Jewish 
temple, J 33; on augury, 
85; on ancestral custom, 
86, 487; on morals, 47; 
on omens, 291; on design 
in the universe, 59; makes 
heaven the reward of na- 
tional robbery, 83, 150; 
uses mainly Stoic litera- 
turein his work on morals, 
47 ; uses monotheist terms, 
150; destruction of his 
monotheist writings advo- 
cated, 95; sells captives as 
slaves, 86; criticises ing 
578; banished, 149. 

Cicero, Quintus,* J 30, 

86, ug? 


r 84, 185, 


Mo, 120, ish, 


54, 62, 71, 
157, 435, can 

Cilicia, J "ll, 
301. 


Cilicians, J 24. 
Cinna, J 121. 





‘INDEX IT. 


Circe, J 482. 
Circensian games, J 314. 
ands J 15,325, 329, 


Citium, J 41. 
Cieaenehly, purchase of, J 


City, the Heavenly, J 44, 
456; I 33 


; , 
Clarke, J. F., J 390. 
Claudia Pulchra, J 5386. 
Claudius, J 9, 75, 77, 85, 87, 
94, 113, 116, 181, 202, 214, 
299-941, 515, 564; T 28, 
63. 81; statue, TJ 235 
I 34, 35; as Beliar, J 137, 
138, 235, 236, 239. 
Claudius, Pacatus, J 277. 
Cleanthes, * J 41, 42, 46, 48, 
49, 61; hymn of, 64. 
Clement of Alexandria, * J 
48, 150, 337-841, 374, 419, 
422, 580 ; ; L 25, 26, 52, 53, 
55, 63, 70, 77, 78, 179, 186, 
189, 204 : un 10, il, 12, 
15, 16, Las 
81, 98° 107, 
147, 139, 160 ; on the con- 
flict with demons, 93; on 
the date of heresies, 130 ; 
on philosophy as a pre- 
paration for Christ, 148. 
Clement of Rome,* I 188, 
193, 204; U 90, 118; his 
alleged second epistle, I 


Clementines,* Clementine 
Homilies, J 358, 359; 
75, 152,205; U 21, 42, "él, 
109, 125-126. 

Cleombrotus, J 288, 289, 

Cleveland Herald, z 830. 

Clinias, J 574. 

Clitus, "J 556. 

Clodian law, J 277. 

Cneius Domitius, J 521, 

Codman, I 218. 

Cohortatio ad Grecos,* J 


168, 358, 406, 428, 427, 
aus 460, "461 ; I lj, 52, 58, 
Coin, of Hadrian, J 129; of 
Domitian, 277 ; of Trajan, 


820. 
Colman, H., I 212. 
Colossians,* J 151, 238, 249, 


Colossians, people of Colosse, 
J 262. 


Colossus, J 273. 

Combefisius, U 94. 

Comet, J 495. 

Coming kingdom, J 485, 436. 

Cominius, J 505. 

Comitia, J 109, 111, 112. 

Commagene, J 84. 

Commodianus,* U 109. 

Commodus, J v, 127, 128, 
498, 543, 562-564; I 80. 





Connie a J 169, 

Concord, J 56 

Conflagration, the J ‘4, 45, 
56, 140, 485, 486, 485; 


Confucius, oo — 

Congress, J 23 

Conscience Savas Moral 
Sense), J 18, 305; no term 
for it in secular Greek. and 
Latin, 29; nor in Chinese, 
384 ; nor in Japanese, 590 ; 
strengthened by sense of 
accountability to God, 28, 
884; extent of its de- 
mands, 866. 

Conservatism, J 258, 361. 

Conservatives, Jewish,J 231, 
252, 253, 330, ce 550. 

Constane * J 70, 1386 

U 178; edicts of, 


Constantinople, J 371. 
Consular senator, the oldest 
entitled to Asia, J 197,381. 
Cordus Cremutius, J 94; 161. 
Corinth, J 128, 229, 231, 234, 
235, 239, 249, 493, 523. 
Corinthians, * J 3, 70, 83, 
151, 1, 256, "263; 
T 2i, 28, 81, 48, 57, 78, 168. 


; Coriolanus, the ’ mother of” 


Cornelia, J 296. 
Cornelius, the centurion, J 


Cornutus, Ceecilius, J 480. 

Correction, House of, J 576. 

Corsica, J 227. 

Cos, J 154 

Cosmocrator, U 26, 61, 125. 

Cossus, J 582. 

Cotelerius, U 61. 

Cotta, J 13, 64, 142; T 180. 

Cotta, Messalinus, J 682. 

Cottian Alps, J 84. 

Cotys, J 113. 

Council, I 8, 28, 46, 47. 

Council of Gangra,* U 77. 

Council of Laodicea,* I 45. 

Council of Nice,* U 77. 

Cousin, J 579. 

Crassus, Lucius L., J 12. 

Crates, J 11. 

Creation, Plato’s account of, 
compared with Genesis, J 


568, 569. 

Creation of man, I iv; of 
universe, 

Creator, a 20, 408, 568, 571 
578; term how used, I 
194; styled Father, J 52; 
recognized only b believ- 
ers in revelation, ; the 
Supreme Bein distin- 
guished from, ? 
ret Supreme Being, 20; 


Creed ; see Apostles. 








WORDS AND SUBJECTS. 


Cremutius, Cordus, J 94,161. 

Crete, J 178, 249, 823. 

Criminals in ‘office, J 316. 

Critias, J 230, 567. 

Croesus, J 301; 125. 

Cross, Moses typical of, J 
; sym of, 345. 

Crown, in heaven, J 455, 


456. 

Crusades} J 370, 371. 

Crusius, U 101. 

Cuba, J 822. 

Culture, human, J 363-388 ; 
esthetic, 371-876; indus- 
trial, 3876-881; literary, 
865 ; mental, 365-367, 385, 
886; moral, ’ 363-365, 385, 
886 ; _ Greek, 11-14, 367- 
371, 382-386; T iii, $1, 82; 
Saracenic, 208. 


Cume, J 399, 408, 405, 488, 


446, 

Cumzan Sibyl, or composi- 
tion, or books, J 395-402, 
414, 425, 431, 482, 446. 

Curio, J 402. 

Customs, Cer moenece 
Ancient) 

Cyclades, ha 528. 

Cy Sega New Am. 

Cynic, a, J 64, 272, 0 


72, 86,96 
‘Or, 110, oe is. 160, 
61 his position as com- 
pared with Hermas, 8. 
Cyprus, J 41, 321, 328 ome 66s; 
_Gyrene, J 164, si 822, 5 
oe 
yrenians 
Cyrenius, a 
Cyril of tins U 101. 
Cyrus, U 36, 


Dactans, J 292, 564 
ascenus, U 117. 
Damascius, J 579. 


Damascus, J 589. 
Daniel,* J 259, 266, 847, 428 


Dark tie, J ‘887, 388, 

Daughter of, meanin 
habitants of, J. 122, 
David, J i 467; 1 136, 
171, "176, 

David, the cia of Robes- 


in- 


the Sun, 68; ” of the Tord, 
70, 262. 
Deacons I Paha 214. 


nso 


811, 361; 
U 80, 38, 34, 40,41 





42, 56, 66-70, 72, 73, 95, 
96, 97, 98, 112, 115, 118° 
24, 148-162, 169-170 ; 
significations of this term, 
50, 60,112, 148,151. 
Death, ee Satan, U 
, 62, 63, 
69, he 132 ; or the 
we ke Lion (41), 65, 66. 
Death, human tenants of the 
Underworld, U 53. 
Death, physical, U 41; a 
benevolent interposition of 
God, 70, 71; a debt due to 
nature, 30. 
Death, term of the Valentin- 
coe for this world, U 26, 


Death, the Underworld, U 
83, 40, 60, 69, 70,114, 115, 


Deceiver, the, =f 137. 

Decemvirs, J 

Decrees cieetning Jews, 
J 154-156, 164. 

Deification of Augustus, J 
179, 820, 505, 515, 518; of 
Claudius, 317 ; : of Titus, 
ps 820, 518; of angels, 


Deiotarus, J 155. 


Deiphobe, TS 446 
Deities, heathen, J 11, 46, 
806-310, 420, 421, BIL; 


I 14, 17, 18, 19, "21-29. 
170; took no interest in 
human improvement, J 
18-20; worship of, had no 
connection with morality, 
25, 575; lack of respect 
for, 7, 168, 279, 317, 474; 
how to be served, 10,226; 
argument for their human 
form, 43, 44 ; whether per- 
ishable, "46, "Bl, 58, 289, 
290 ; originate moral evil, 
482; I 71; identified with 
angels, J 502; plurality of, 
and human form deemed 
universal, 388; no reve- 
lation from, 4 20; not pre- 
dicted, 37; their overthrow 
the object of Christ's mis- 
sion, 27; see Heathens. 

Deity ; see God. 

Deity, Sabine, Dy 34. 

De la Rue, I 68 

Delatores, J 35, ‘475-481, 529, 


Delos, 
Delphi, J 18, 26, 157, 290, 


chief slave-market, 


Deluge, J 55, 57, 408, 411, 
482, 


85 ; Deluges, I 182. 
Demas, I 181, 182 
Demetrianus, T 348. 
ee a Christian, J 


13 


193 


Demetrius of Syria, J 368. 

Demetrius of Tarsus, J 288. 

Demetrius, the Cynic, J 54. 

Democritus, J 580. 

De Monarchia,* J 358; I 
75, 198. 

Demon of Socrates, J 567. 

Demons, J 19, 166, 862, 408, 
460, 461, 468, BGT ; I 109, 
143, 206, "210; U 109, 128 
129;; views concerning, z 
288, ” 989, 298, 299; death 
of, "O88, "289 ; the ‘promp- 
ters of sinful inclinations, 
U 92, 98; seize souls at 
death, 42, 438; whether 
they controlled prophets 
after death, 42, 121; sub- 
ject to Christians, 42, 74- 
75, 93; human conflict 
with, 93 ; extent of their 
foreknowledge touching 
the Messiah, 82; see 
Spirits, Powers, Angel, 
World-rulers, Deities, hea- 
then. 

Demophile, J 446. 

De Morte Claudii Ludus,* 
J 240, 

Design, evidence of, in uni- 
verse, J 58, 59, 390, 578. 

Deucalion, J 55 

Deuteronomy ,* J 58, 340, 


, 570. 

Devil, I 45, 66, 67, 214; U 
5, 26, 41, "60, 64, 79, 80, 98, 
100, 125, 132; “extent of 
his foreknowledge touch- 
ing Christ, 82; see Satan, 
Cosmocrator, World-ruler. 

De Wette, J 369,370 ; I 188. 

Dewey, J 17. 

Diana, J 396, 440. 

Diatessaron, I 184. 

Diceearchia, J 217, 488. 

Dickinson, John, J 177. 

Diderot, J 228, 863. 

Dido, J 418. 

Didron, J 261. 

Didymus, J 18, 290; 

Dietelmaier, Mi 

Dillman, I 170, xs 

Dio Cassius, *5 1 72, 
88, 100, 108, 111. Bri 121, 
143, 158, 167, 169, 176, 179, 
184, 188, 198, 214. 243, 247, 
291, 293, 321- 323° 325, 326, 
ssl, 494. §22; I 14, 63, 69, 


Dio Chrysostom,* J 28, 286, 
ie 309, 316, 417, 420, 
eB 69: ‘charged with 
tabaiiee, J 10, 308; ap- 
roximated monotheism, 
bt, 297, 299, 304, 376, 488 ; 
persecuted by Pliny, 299- 
302; a friend of Nerva, 
280; erects a library, 302. 
Diodorus Siculus,* J 417. 


I 189. 





194 


Diogenes, J 38. 
Diogenes, a Cynic, J 278. 
Diogenes, a grammarian, J 


Diogenes Laertius,* J 42, 
Diogenes of Babylon, J 41, 
Diognetus, * 127, 48, 75, 194, 


Dionysius, a tyrant, I 

Dionysius ‘of Corinth, J 70 

Dionysius of Hallearnassus,* 
J 151, 414; U 128. 

Dioscorides, 5 371. 

Diotrephes, J 254. 

Diphilus, 7x 839, 341. 

Disciples of the Porch, J 42. 

Dispute (Discussion) of Ar- 
chelaus and epee U 26, 
81, 62, 109, 117. 

Divination, J 2 62, 195; 
I 28,76; ridiculed, ¢ J 291; 
decay of belief i in, 63, 177. 

Divorce, J 3l. 

Docete, ST 46. 

Doctrina Orientalis,* U 20, 
i 25, 26, 82, 98, 123, 


Dolabella, J 154, 155, 156. 
Domitia, J 87. 
Domitian, 4 iv, 10, 
87, 93, 9 4, 131, 132, ‘ 
286, 297, ai, 490, 561, 563, 
’ > , ’ : 
titles of, J 278; replaced 
libraries, 278; benevolent 
law of, 14, 285, 286, 321, 
825; traits of, 80, 91, 92; 
Senate charged its crimes 
on him, 95; decision of, 
adopted by Trajan, 320; 
maligned by Tacitus, 541. 
Domitius ; see Mnobarbus. 
Domitius, J 153 
Paste Bi J 206, 208, 


210, 5 

Domitius Pollio, J 190. 

Dora, J 548. 

Doxology, I 187. 

Dragon, emblem of the Ro- 
man power, gf 125, 126. 

Dress, I 69, 7 

Druidism, J 3, 397. 

Drusilla, 9 100, 206, 208. 

Drusus, son of ‘Germanicus, 

30, 540; brother of 

Tiberius, 176, 181: son of 
Tiberius, 8, 74, 112, 509, 
517, 518, "528, 529, 536, 538. 

Dublin Review, J 330. 

Dupin, U 182. 

Duumviri, J 395, 396, 399. 

Dysmas, I 128, 181. 


Eaciz, allegory of the, J 

130, 183, 134. 

Earth, growing old, I 19; 
form of, 76 ; rotates, 77. 





INDEX III. 


Earthquake, earthquakes, J 
57, 120, 148, 154, 228, 229 
8 21 ; T° 133, 149; in Asia 
Minor, J 117, 122 ’ 232, 262, 
360 ; in Sogo 19, "242 ; 

} Z 


Judea, 188, 137, 138," 

East, J 3438 - I 204 ; antici- 
pations of power for, J 
136, 550, 562 ; government 
of, 272 ; dominion of, 491; 
king from, 264 ; I 207 ; 
cp. ‘Kingdom. 

Easter, U 78. 

Kastern teaching, U 21. 

Ebionites, I 185, 186; U 
126, 138, 145. 

Eby, 0. 8., J 590. - 

Ecclesiasticus, J 27. 

Eclipse, J 227; I-76, 188; 
at the crucifixion, J 442. 

Beloge Prophetarum,* U 


Economy, The, a theological 
nig J 357; U 15, 42, 72, 
81, 82, 84. 

Edessa, T 149, 150, 1658. 

Edessene Archives, mits 

Edicts in favor of Jews, J 
154, 155, 164. 

Education, fashionable, J 
295; early, 369. 

Effigies, J 219. 

Egypt, J 120, 324, 367; 161, 
67, 77, 115, 122, 126, 182; 
170, 173, 80, ” 189, 201, 
208, 208; aseat of Juda- 
ism, J 1, 41, 499; and of 
Christianity, 394; Plato 
visited, 464, 568 ; senators 
prohibited from visiting, 
100; symbolizes this and 
the Underworld, U 24. 

Egyptian god, J 543; priest, 
39; magicians, 249, 250; 

pilot, 250 5 religion, 188, 

472, 5 j Tites, 226 ; 

Jews, 299 « antiquities, 

539 ; rites suppressed, 542, 


Egy ptians, J 38, 39 
123, 264; I 18, 
188, 189; U5, 6 

Kichhorn, [ xiii, xiv. 

Eight, peg args of the 
number, Il 

ba 9 Day, J 70; I 44, 46, 


Eighth Space, U 124. 
Eighth Sphere, I 173. 
Eleatics, I 68. 
Eleazar, 'T 550. 
Eleusinian ws J mo 
Eijjah, J 828, 437, 
501; I 1;U oT 33, 30, ry 
112, ib. 


Elim, J 346. 
Elisha, J 264, 845. 


58, 68, 
122, ‘180; 





Elohim, J 581. 

Elysian Fields Plain, J 421, 
422, 480; I 25; U 97, 
102; 108, 122, 164. 


Embroidery, a Sunday occu- 
pation, J 32, 
Emesa, J 118. 
Emetic before dinner, J 91. 
Emmaus, I 91. 
Empedocles, J 45, 288. 
Emperor, meaning of, J 5lo. 
34387 Gee of God, Tt 
; term repugnant to 
Tiberius, J 534. 
Endor, I 28; U 44-45. 
England, J 380, 
Enneas, I 107. vg 
Enneus, I 5, i06 
Ennius, a knight, '; Ta, 
Ennius, a ua ah J 7 st 
ae of 
5 8 5 3s a 
108, 11: 
Enoch, ada. of,* J My 46, 
BL, BB, 57, 482-489 ; I ~ 


; its view 
evil, J 48, 482 
Epaphroditus, J 288. 
Ephesian Letters, U 22, 
ee * Epist., J. 255, 


Ephesians, le, J ae 
ae J 248, 7540 F 
8, 262, 574, 0b, 580; 
T 21, 62, 213. 
Epictetus, * TJ 41, 62, 68, 64, 
2838, 319, 
Epicureans I 67, 68. 
ey ry 888; I 66, 68; 


Epipheniun *I i ae ed 
Epidaurus, "78 ; 
Epitherses, J 289. 

sons, J 148, 151, 152, © 


Erastus, J 249. 

Ermeland, Bp. of, I 211, 

Ernesti, z 590. 

Erythree, J 36, 142, 150, 402, 
yo 406, 418, 432) 446, 448, 


Erythrean narrative ; verses, 


Sibyl, document, ’ writer 
J vi, ’36, 69, 119, 142, 143, 
157, 1 . 16 ‘ A . 
837 , 842, 402-484, 444, 
454,472; U 97 
Erythreans, J 4389, 
Esau, I 192. 
Esculapius, J 896; i 


ee (the pe 


Esdras,* Second Book of, 
J 120, 130-184, 327, 490. 

Esquimaux, J 389, 390. 

Ethics, Nicomachean, J 368. 








WORDS AND SUBJECTS. 


Ethiopia, J 306. 
Ethnarch, J 84, 85. 
Etruria, J a aristocracy 


of, 

hing,* me 
divination, J 175, 176, 
198 


Etruscans, ritual books of, 
120. 


325. 
Euphrates, J 41, 219, 264, 
492, 494, 497. 
Euphrates, a Stoic, J 41. 
Euripides, J 20, 309; Pseudo, 


839, 
‘Europe, J i: I55, 198, 
208, 213; i 


dark ages in, 
J 387. 
Eusebius,* J 70, 252, 269, 


820, 356, 545, 560 ; 4 

85, 105, 186, 188, 189, 318; 
U 154, 163; Chronicon of, 
J 122 


? , 283, 825, 


831, * 
ustochium, I 189. 
orcea ar J 100. 
Eve, J 430; 123, 70, 177; 
‘U 68, 172 


Exemption of Christians 
112-125, 161, 163 + origin 
= ori 
of a belief in it, 54, 157, 
a its supposed cause, 


Exodus,* J 268, 264, 340, 


3 
Expensive living, J 89-92. 
Extracts from ss fag heti- 
eal Writin 


os Bo 263, 265; I 
Ezra; see Esdras, 


Fastus, U 74. 

Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, 
J 396. 

Fabricius, J 329,472; I 151, 
161; 2. 

Facciolati, J- ~ 178, 448. 

Fairies, Js 

Fairs, J 512 

Falanius, J 7. 

False Prophet, the, J 502. 

Famine, J 228, 229. 

Pannia, J 284, 296. 

Fascial, I 109, 110, 114. 

Fasting, J 

Fate, J 64, 290, 540. 

Fates, J 240. 

Father, J 290, 350, 352, 357, 





426; meanings of, as ap- 
plied to God, 52, 58; 
meanings of, as applied to 
Jupiter, 52; Jewish use 
of term 52; Stoic use of 
term, 5a; use of word by 
Plato, 58, 571. 

Father, power of a, Pega 
Roman law, J 517, 5 

Father of Justice, of the 
heavens, of the universe, 


I 62, 53. 

Fathers, J 184, 193, 196, 225, 
478; I 2; Christian, J 
845, 853; views concern- 
ing, U 140-141. 

Faustus, U 18, 27, 28. 

Favor, a Gnostic’ term, J 


Fayetteville, T 211. 

Fearer of God, J 471. 
Fenestella,* J 433. 

Festivals J 97, 225; Roman, 


Festus, I 157. 

Ficinus, J 579. 

Fidenex, J 74. 

Figulus, P Nigidius, J 146. 

Fire, the substance of God, 

47, 580; of angels, 

46: of demons, "46; a com- 

ponent part of the giants, 

46; not an element, U 

123 ; identified with spirit, 

123. 


Firmicus pret *U 75. 
First-day, I 44, 46. 
Flaccianus, J 450. 
Flaccus, Avillius, J 85, 96 
Boo, bee 206, 516, 


5 
Flaccus, Caius Norbanus, J 
1 


519, 


Flaccus, Lucius Valerius, J 
88, 71, 122, 147, 291 

Flaccus, Valerius,* J 431; 
U 108, 164. 

Flamen Dialis, J 179. 

Flavia Domitilla, J 279, 280. 

Flavian amphitheatre, J 274. 

Flavian family, J 280, 545. 

og ngs preetor of Libya, J 


Flavius Clemens, J 279, 280- 
282, 284, 319. 

Flesh, redemption of, U 91. 

Flood, J 55 

Floods, J 56, 130. 435, 486. 

Florus, Gessius, J 244, 546- 


Fonteius "Agrij J 190 
191. ppa, ; 


Forcellini, J 29, 178, 448. 

Forefather, J 53. 

Foreign divinities, J 233. 

Foreign rites or religion, J 
176, 211, 361, 472, 545 ; } 
43: prohibited, J ‘195, 232 





195 


Foreign superstition, J 8,9, 
; Meaning of, 80, 

472’. cp. Peregrinum. 
Foreigners, J 141, 395; ex- 
pelled from Rome, 2; a 
Jewish term for Gentiles, 


24, 255. 
Peeper, J 290, 485, 
Forgeries, Christian, J 347, 


, 445 ; , 


Formula of Concord, U 165- 
167 


Forrest, J 356; U 148. 

Fortnightly Review, J v. 

Fortune, oracle of, 7 195; a 
term for God, 64. 

Fourth eee U 106, 107. 

France, I 210. 

Frankincense, J 167. 

Frauenburg, T 211. 

Frederic of can J 363, 


364; I21 

Freedmen, J 86-88, 148, 188, 

212 684. 

Freedom of speech, J 505. 

Freed-women, J 115, 176. 

Freiburg, I 210, 

Friday ignored, J 68. 

Friedlieb, J 406, 408, 450. 

Frontinus, J 476. 

Frothingham, I 188. 

Fry, Elizabeth, J 367. 

Fucinus Lake, J 77; I 69. 

Fugitive, Matricidal, J 498; 
Roman, 497 

Fulness, a Gnostic term, J 
334 


Fulvia, J 33, 189, 1 
Funeral, gladiatorial, J 34. 
Fuscus Aristius, J 158. 
Future existence, J 26, 27. 


Gasinius, J 542. 
Gabriel, a 427. 
os a Christian, J 254, 


Gaius,* a setae 4 172, 178. 
Galatia, J 239, 39 
Galatians,* Ep. al ‘J 151;I 


43, 58, 1 

Galba, J 80, 85, 89, 123, 127, 
131, 182, "296, 490, "495; 
cruelty of, 65, "108. 

Galen, physician, J 371. 

Galilean, a term for Chris- 
tians, J 319. 

Galilee, J 235, 244, sue 548, 
553-555, 559; I x , 89, 
95, ik 139, 140, 141, 142) 


ie Gallen: U 187. 


ont population at Rome, 
55. 

we J 284, 582, 587, 540, 
Gallus; Asinius, J 180, 184, 


517, 522, 528, 589, 540, 541. 
Gallus, Caninius, J 447. 


(196 


Gallus, Cestins, J 244, 546, 


Gallus, Sestius, J 510. 
Games, public, J 81, 71-82 
, 2/4, 279, 291-298 ; I 
: 84; at Vienne, J 
292, 298; of Herod at 
Ceesarea, 81; of Herod 
Agrippa at Berytus, 114; 
suppressed in Asia Minor, 
72; Christians sacrificed 


es 


Gates of death, U 36; of the 
ane 36; of Tarta- 


Gaul, ce 155, 207, 208, 209, 
, 306, 387, 480 ; 
I ee 


Gaulish Asia, J 397. 

Gaulish Greece, J 397. 

Gauls, J 115, 116, 152, 155, 
897, 898, 4 421, 

Gehenna, J 429,500; U 128. 

Gellius, J 146 

Gemalitis, I oA. 

ceoar a conscientious, I 


Generation, Tenth, J 118, 
119, 124; First to Eleventh, 


407. 

Genesis,* J 411, 568; I 8, 
18, 192; authorship of, 
A ps ; two accounts in, 


genes’ J 369,379; I ry 

Genitor, Julius, J 998, 29 

Gennesareth, J 558. 

Gentile Christianity, how 
viewed by Jewish Chris- 





tians, J 255, 256. 

Gentile monotheists, J 24, 
818, 342, 462, 463, "A71; 7 
38, 69, 115; Christians, 8, 

era Reale? Shade ag 

Gentiles, listened to Christ, 
and were saved from the 
Underworld, according to 
Marcion, U 4-7; and the 
Manichzeans, 13; and the 
Liberalist Catholics, ll- 
18; but not according to 
the Orthodox, 7-11; see 
Heathens. 

Gentiles, Patriarchs of ,U 13. 

Georgics; see Virgil. 

Gerizim, fi 270, 469. 

Germanicus, J 74, 115, 181- 
187, 191-i94, 540 ; heads 
rebellion against Tiberius, 
111, 528, 589. 

German women, J 293. 

Germans, J 564. 

& te 35. ao’ 





A eit Florus; see Florus, 





Gestas (Stegas), T1381 


INDEX III. 


Giants, J 428, 482, 486; 
constituted of fire or spirit, 
and soul, 46. 

Gibbon, J 136, 187, 159, 312, 
871, ~ ; 74, 475, 
545, 561-564, 590 

Gieseler, U iv. 

Gnosticism, U 180, 146. 

Gnostics, J 46, 54, 831-3836, 
346, 347, 349, 351, 356 ; 
T 20, 21, 70 71, 184; Alex- 
andrine, 858 ; ; 
Valentinian, 77, 173; origi- 
nate in anti-Jewish feel- 
ing, caused by a war, U 
4, 146; their system occa- 
sions "the deification of 
Christ, 146; a distinguish- 
ing view of, 4; divisions 
of, 4,5; date of, 1380; see 
Marcionites, Valentinians, 

God, a common noun among 
Greeks and Romans, J 3, 
4; absence of term for, 
among Kafirs, 389. 

EM age ty subordinate, J 349- 


God, of the Stoics, circum- 
cised, 2. 

God, the Good, U 6; the 
Just, 6. 

God of the Old Testament, 
according to the Gnostics, 
U 4; according to the 
Catholics, 9, 94, 145-147. 

God of this world, J 338, 
334 ; according to Marcion, 
U 59; according to the 
Catholics, 59; see Satan, 
Devil, Cosmocrator, World- 
ruler, 

God’s kingdom, J 405, 426. 

God, the Supreme (cp. Su- 
preme Being), J 169, 234, 

235, 354; designations of, 
T 51-53 ; a’ pilot, 14; the 
Creator, ‘15, 52; absence of 
term for, in Greek and 
Latin, J 3; and in Chinese, 
2, 3; and in Zulu, 590 ; 
Jewish terms for, 4, 5, 53, 
427, 487 ; Stoic terms for, 
46, 47, 52, 538, 60; Christian 
terms. for, 852; Seneca’s 
terms for, > 64 Jewish 
views of, 16, 17, 21, 22, 42, 
43, at 469 ; Pere views 
of, 42, 48 , 46, 48, 59, 142, 
’388, 575; Gnostic 
views of, 331-354 ; I 21; 
Sibylline views of, J 337- 


841; accepts non-obsery- | 


ers of ritual law, 24, 485; 


Father, 58, 571; whether 
personal, 60 ; whether cor- 
poreal, 142; x 15, 16, 81, 
218 ; fire the substance of," 
J 45, 580 ; identified with 





the vor , 60; oe ae 

of his existence, 

578; devoid of Ser 342, 

B52; I 86, 51; U 146; 
name not to be u ttered, 
J 339, 342; superintend- 
ing care of, 47, 566 ; paren- 
tal affection of, 52; ever 
present, 567 ; interested in 
man’s moral culture, 66, 
391; recognition of, 234} 
practical recognition of, 
150, 169; located in the 
third heaven, 334; in the 
seventh heaven, 70; in 
the eighth heaven, or Ple- 
roma or ca of the fixed 
stars, 150, 884; figure of 
speech concerning, 358 ; 
his relation to moral evil, 
47; inthe garb of a Pope 
261 ; spherical form of, 2 
16; 'a spirit, 15; Son of, 
J B52 5 origin of our 
knowledge concerning, 
888 ; discussion of his an- 
tiquity, I 18. 

Gods of Death, U 838 

Gods of this world, U 81. 

Gods (cp. Heathen), their 
ete go to heaven, U 


Gods; see Deities. 
God-worship, J 461. 
God-worshipper, J 464, 
Goethe, J 363. 

Golden era, J 117. 

Golden palace, burnt, J 299. 
Gomorrah, U 6, 

ee , meanings of term, I 


Gospel of ieee U 164. 

Gospels, J 342; alle: un- 
canonical, I 7, 182-189; 
genuineness of, U_184- 
ae sep of, J ae 

7 not orged 

Gnostic use of,” Sho go4; 

not adapted to controversy 
with heathens, 336, > 
438, 442, 462. 

Goths, J 562. 

Government, free, J 3866, 
867; see Liberty; Censor- 
ship. 

Governaie, provincial, J 381. 

Grabe, I 186 ; U 94. 

Gracchi, Jd 211. 

Grammarians, J 588. 

Gratilla, J 284. 

Graves, a ee J 171. 

Graves, R., "398. 


Gravitation, I ee 
senses in which called 


Greece, J 368, ae he: 
212; devoid of yank cul- 
ture, J 3868; invasion of, 
421; a term "for heathen- 
dom, 423 ; devoid of libra- 
ties, '589. 





WORDS AND SUBJECTS. 


Greek Church, I 46. 

Greek culture, J 11-14, 40, 
882-387 ; I iii, 81, 82, 208; 
due to Jewish ‘influence Jo 
y, 151, 367, 368, 382-384; 
expelled . from Rome, iii, 
12; locality of, 368, 587, 
589; in disfavor with’ patri- 
cians, 369; cause of 
their’ distaste for it, 114; 
its’ leader in disfavor, 13; 
did it influence Oriental 
nations? iii. 

Greek dress, I 82; adopted 
by patrician leaders, J 
114, 115, 186. 

Greek language, J 150, 161; 
chief vehicle of ancient 
literature, 14. 

Greek physicians and teach- 
ers made citizens, J 12; 
excepted from expulsion 
by Augustus, 12, 138. 

Greek poetry, cited, J 533. 

Greek society, I 69. 

Greeks, a term for Gentiles, 
J 151, 152, 238, 328, 462, 
496 ; story of one fattened 
by "Jews, 247; expelled 
from Rome, 12-14. 

Greeks, ce a ee 
views of God, I 81 


Hasaxxur, J 428. 


Habit, J 
Hades, J 118, 126, 414, 496 ; 
U i, 105, 113, 117, 126, 
155, 156 ; etymology of, 25, 
; Josephus’ s Discourse 
on ee ancient treatise 


63 

Hadrian, J 14 15, 564, 590 ; 
I 65 ;U 130; offers 
Bethos, F 129; feared 
assassination 325, 364 ; 
Jewish rebellion under, 65, 
69, ; its effects, 00 
ii, 830- 359, 462, 463 


146. 
Hagenbich, U 91, 92, 128- 


Hanvibal, a 396. 

Hanover, J 

Hardsteikees er, The, J 329. 

Harper’s Weekly, J 124. 

Harris, M. C. 590. 

Hase, U 101. 

Haterius, Quintus, J 508. 

Hayward, Sir J., J 177. 

Heathen deities, "S 298. 

Heathenism, J ’31, 187; its 
views of religion, 25; im- 

rsonation of, 236, "468 ; 

ts decay, 548. 





Heathen moralists addressed 
sentiment rather than 
principle, J 28, 29.. 

Heathen religion, the, J 196, 
198, 291, 298 ; void of 
moral aim, and of mental 
or moral teaching, 25, 26, 


290, 542. 

Heathen rites, J 224, 225, 
452; re- -established, 1793 
knowledge of, died out, 362, 

Heathens (cp. Gentiles ,con- 
troversy with, U 81, 32, 
83; their view of the Un- 
derworld, 1, 2, 3, 97, 98; 
their deities regarded as 
human, 3; as demons, 74, 


Heaven, Heavens, U 1, 103, 
105; a city, J 4 44 ; "new, 
6, 488; lower, RR y 0 
two, U 152; three, third, 
J 334; I 77; U 20, 
104, 105, x 06, 107 ; axth’ 
U 20, 106 ; sixth, Li: 
U 25 : seven, seventh, J 


eighth, J 334; (77?) 
173; highest, U 19, 110, 
153; of the fixed stars, 
J 150, 834; Saturn’ preign 
in, 414, 
Heavenly City, J 456. 
rae parallelism, J 46, 


Hebrew Slave, J 168. 
ge Se J 38, 189, 169, 239 
8, 464; antiquity of, IT 
Be Lord’s day of, 110; 
writer to, 166. 
Hebrews,* Ep. J 24 
254, 874; 4 66. 169, 207. 
Hector, J 10, 406, 420. 
Hegesippus, a 253, 820 
ee Catechism, U 


67 
Helen, J 10, 412, 417. 
Hell, U 164- 171. 
Hellenistical Greek, J 180. 
Helper ; see Christ. 
Helvetius, J 368. 
Helvidius, Jun., J 313. 
Helvidius Priscus, J 65,271, 
283, 284, 296, 312; biog- 
raphy of, 94. 
Helvius, Rufus, J 518. 
Hemans, Mrs. , 1210. 
Heracleon, J 288, 289; I 
185; U 20, 21, 34, 25. 
Heraclitus, J 48, 368, 574, 
575; predecessor of the 
Stoies, 580. 
Heras, J 273. 
Herculaneum, J 10, a 242. 
Hercules, J 56, 63, Assy 
151, 152, 208, 20, 
542; I 93, 145; Praises rag 
a work by J. Czesar, J 98. 





197 


Herennius ; see Senecio. 
Heresies, when they arose, 


Heretic "defined by Origen 
331, 332 inst 


J : 
Heretics, I 185. 
Hermaphrodite, J 570. 


position contrasted ‘vith 
Cyprian’s, 8. 

Hermes Trismegistus,* I 
179, Gi iy 200, 201, 


Hermias, J 368; I 75, 198; 
U 109. 


Hermopolis, I 180. 

Herod, I 107, 126. 

Herod’ oe Junior ; see 
Agrip 

Herod Tien: Senior, J 9, 
99-102, 116, 217, 218, 
228, 520, 521; a patrician 
emissary, 99, 100, 105; 
pretended gift of a king- 
dom to, 107, 112, 118; 
supported by the Jewish 
aristocracy, 96; sketch of 
his life, 112-114 ; observed 
the ceremonial ‘law, 114; 
rewarded by patricians 
under Claudius with a 
kingdom, 84, 222; his 
expedition to Alexandria, 
100-105, 206, 291. 

Herod Antipas, .- 107, 127, 
147, 154 , 155, 15 

eT King of Chalets, J 


Herod the Great, J 84, 98, 
116, 163, 165, 330; his 
public games, 381; sup- 
ported by the Jewish aris- 
tocracy, 96; fraternizes 
with M. Agrippa, 98, 116. 

Herodian, J 562, 563. 

Herodias, I 154, 156. 

Herophile, J 44(), 446. 

Herr, meaning of, J 278. 

Hesiod, J 414,415; U1, 97. 

Hezekiah, I 170. 

Heterodox ; see Catholics, 

Hierapolis, ‘z = ee, 262. 

Hierax, U 109, 1 

High-priest, J 164. 

Hindoos, J 383. 

Hindostan, J 118. 

Hippocrates, J 368, 371, 589. 

Hippolytus, U 1 

Hispallus ; see son io. 

Hoar, Judge, I 212. 

Hobbes, J 363. 

Hoffmann, J 483. 

Holy, definition of, J 486. 

Holy of Holies, J pants 148, 
145, 216; I 33, 

Holy "Spirit, J 353-58, 470, 
I 49, 169, 170; when per- 


198 


sonified, J 358, 354 ; deifi- 
cation of, I 50, 200, 205; 
pemeeehy of, ignored, U 


Home, J 380; relations of, 
874, 375. 

Homer,* J 19, 405, 417; I 

’ ; ’ Dy 75 7 a 
test of heathen orthodoxy, 
J 10, 208; quoted by 
Claudius, 10; Plutareh’s 
exposition of, 808-310 ; 
copies Sibylla, 419; con- 
ceals Sibylla’s books, 420 ; 
contradiction of, treated 
as unbelief, 420. 

Homilies,* on Luke i ms 
186, 187, 188, 189, 199 
98, 172, 178.” 

Homilies of Church of Eng- 
land, U 88, 168-169, 170. 

Hone, I 161, 182. 

Horace,* J ig, 167, 169, 425, 
436; his sabbatical friend, 
67, 158, 159; he bur: 
lesques Jewish teaching, 
422,424 ; he metrifies Jew- 
ish ‘teaching, 167, 451-458. 

Horeb, J 843; I 13, 66. 

Hortatory ’ Address to 
Greeks, U 118, 119. 

Hospitals, J 370. 

Hottentots, J 389. 

House of Gold, J 330. 

Huet, I 16, 275 U 102. 


[Huidekoper, H . J.J, J 885; 
Humanitarians, U 145. 
Hume, J 177 


Hymeneeus, J 250. 

Hymns to the gods, their 
character, J 19. 

Hy poty poses, U7. 

Hyrcanus, J 156. 

Hystaspes, J 61, 166, 426, 
459; I 7, 86, 71, 72, 188. 


Ipma, J 440. 

Ideean Mother, a be. stone, 
J 397, 398. 

Idol, I 25. 

Idolatry, J 267, 404; I 13, 

18, 21, 25, 27-29, 83; 

1 28. 

Ignatius* (Ignatian Epis- 
tles), J 820, 474; I 198; 
U 10, 73, 80, 157. 

Tliad, U 1 36. 

llion, J 418. 

Ilium, J 417. 

Images, I 27; molten, J 
192; introduced from 
Asia, 378; exclusion of, 
from Jerusalem permitted, 
219 ; their political import, 
219; prohibition of, 224; 
thrown away by Romans 
on first day of Passover, 
151, 152. 





INDEX III. 


Immortality, J 458; U 69, 
148-152, 160. 
Imperator, J 559. 

Independence, years of, J 


489, 
India, I 187 ; alphabet of, 


Indian philosophers, J 882. 
Indians, J 876, 377 ; I 187. 
Informer, J 475, 481. 
Inspiration, J 415 ; I 72, 73. 
not: Gnostie term, J 


Intelligence, J 365-867. 

Intuition, J 366, 388. 

Ionia, J 574 

Irenzeus,* J 150, 256, 267, 
831, 335, 349; T 78, 178, 
182; 183, 187, 198 U5, 6, 
7, 8, 9, 22, 23, 6, 28, 
37, 39, 43, 53, 57° 60 61. 
67, 71, TT, "80, "89, 94, 108, 
115, 1i7, 150, 157 ; his an- 
titheses, J 349; U 68-71, 


Irving, W., J 376. 
Isaac, J 350, 428 ; 1148. 


445, 501; I 28, 82, 73; 
Isaiah, Ascension of,” * J 347, 
445 


58, 59, 81, 83, 112, 136, 
O4. 
Isis, J 195, 824, 542, 543; I 


ovactiten, J 346, 349, 444, 

Isthmus Zz 499 ; of Corinth, 
128, 493. 

Italian state, its fictitious 
bing from a monotheist, 


Italian teaching, U 21. 

Italy, J 887; I 55, 61, 62, 
79, 81, 83, 84, 85, religion 

. of, 19’; ; politics of, 84; sa- 
cred to Saturn, J 413, 


Jackson, U 162. 
Jacob, = 845, 850, 428; 
I , 141, 148, 191; 


Jambres, J 250; I 122. 
James, J 256; I 11, 156, 
157, 158; arrested, i 114. 
James, * the less, J 252; 
death of, 256 ; Ep. of, 255, 


489 
Jannes, J 250; I 122. 
Japetus J 412. 
Jason, S 233. 
Javolenus, Priscus, J 171. 
Jehovah, J 47, 267, 392, 472. 
me tu LT 78, 90, 


5 
Jericho typifies this earth, 
24, 145. 


? 





Jerome,* J 151, 238, 
897, 


Ri = 
U ie2, 173. 
Jerusalem, J 270 
rebuilding of, ee 1, 


e ag 


eeaee 


o 
B 
‘= 
ie] 
= 
ral 


_ 
[o) 
| 0 
- Lad 
5% 
ie 
(ora. 
=I 
E 
& Bote 
nape te 
2, Swe Ot wee 


qy 


54, 117, 245, 824, 825, 495, 
549, 557; walls repaired, 
113; rebuilt, 825, 326, 
343; no exponent of Jew- 
ish culture, 384; 

forbidden to enter, pve 
what it typifies Oo, 


ing to OFgen 24; 
ia ticrseleon’ 
Ay rs of, 


pe the new, J 186, 


Jesus ; see ee 

Jesus, J 263; I 1538 Gnos- 
tic view of, a 358; Mar. 
cion’s view “of, 332, 25; 
Valentinian view of, 
birth of, I 115, 116, va 
190, 202’; mission of, 27, 
17 70, 206-218, 215; Under- 
world mission of, 
177 ; deification of, J 349- 

9; I 50, 190-201, 205; 
personal ap nee of, 
39-42, 75, 152, 160; Deity 
of the O. Test. 38, 39; an 
angel i Aan s an apos- 
tle, 190, 1; a subor- 
dinate ©. 194, 199; : 
servant, 192, 198, 200 
subordinate workman, mein 
195; instrument of crea- 
tion, 198, 194, 196; dura- 
tion of his ministry, 171; 

re-existent 850 ; 

70, 190, 198, 129: the Be- 
loved, 170; ‘distinguished 
from the Supreme Being, 
J 351-354 authorized by 
God, 894; acrostic on 
444° not an object of 
prayer, 470; name — 
as Joshua, ap. 346, 349 
444 ; numerical import of, 
I 178; temporary disuse 
ee word, 75, 76, 199; see 

Jewish christians U 1833, 
145; worship with 
Jews, J 20; charged with 
setting fire to Rome, 245. 

Jewish influence on Ch 
tians, J 1, 15, on the 
Stoics, 40-66, 173, 565; on 
Greek culture, 40, 173, 
882; on Romans, iii. er 
on heathens, ttt 30, 66 











WORDS AND SUBJECTS. 


- $27; its termination in 
Europe, 65, 

Jewish literature, J 28. 

Jewish people, wife of Je- 
hovah, 265. 

Jewish — Pe ag 
compared with heathen, 
J 20-25. 

—. Asiatic, exempted from 

military service, J 154, 


156. 
Jews, U 6, 8, 9; expulsions 


188-190, 222, 238-281, 235, 
280 ; 84; "the mechan- 
ics of former times, J 40, 
195, 381; not admitted to 
office in Italy, 16, 28; ad- 
mitted to office in Asia, 16; 
civil rights of, at Antioch, 
41; national ‘rite of, for- 
bidden, 14, 15, 821, 825; 
not permitted to visit Je- 
rusalem, 344; feeling tow- 
ards, under T a, 10; 
under Hadrian, ; at- 
tend Czesar’s funeral, 6, 
154; average character 
above that of heathens, 27- 
82; views of, compared 
with Stoic views, 42-61; 
and with heathen views, 
17-20, 24, 27; their views 
of future life, 572, 578; of 
the ceremonial law, 467, 
468, 482; of omens, 61, 62; 
tax on, 281; ae of them 
soothsayers, 87, 385 lik- 
ened to philosophers, 382, 
883; rebellion of, under 
Nero, 244, 545-560 3 under 
n, 
controversy’ with, U 33. 
44, 71; aided by heath- 
ens, J 327; their physi- 
cians, 371; see Revolt. 
Jews, he J 377; in 
iii, iv; Mesopota~- 
tinny 323: the Liberal or 
Liberalist, 24, 58, 488; I 


John, son of ee J 546, 


John, * the apostle, J 256- 
258, 442; G68 4 of, * a 


; Epistle of, J 
58, 98. ‘ 
John, ‘style of, I 92. 
John, the Baptist, I 38, 48, 
49, 74, 94, 98, 101, 164, 
155, 156, 173; U 158. 
John, writer of the Apoca- 
lypse, J 255-258, 261-263. 





Jonathan, high-priest, I 155. 

Jones, I 161. 

Joppa, I 95. 

Jordan, J 345, 560; I 49; 
takes fire, 175. 

Joseph, J 

Joseph, the ‘carpenter, 
381; I 108, 115, 116, 08, 
182, "171, 202, 

Joseph of Arimathea, I 5, 
88, er 185, 136, 138, 189, 


42. 
Josephus, * J 34, 44, 67, 68, 
71, 96, 103, 120, 148, 154- 
156, 163-165, 180, 189, 
190, 219, 237, 245, 
261, 811; 
465, 

552, I : 
74, 79, 158 ; Tra lbean born, 
J 561 ; his lack of princi- 
ple, 553, 554 ; in service of 
conservatives, 244, 548; 
heads the revolutionists, 
548 ; inconsistency of, 114: 
self-contradictions of, 549, 

, 558-555 ; alleged pre- 
diction by, 559; interpo- 
lations of, I 6, 153-157; 
U 163; his discourse on 
Hades, 163. 

Joshua, I 75, 198; 


Jesus. 

Jotapata, J 244, 549, 554, 
559, 560. 

Jove, J 290, 460. 


Jucundus, J 547. 
oe oe 156, 195, 344, 


see 


Judaicus, J 2738. - 

Judaism, J 5, 99, 232, 262, 
567 ; did it influence Orien- 
tal nations? iii; conver- 
sions to, 181; become 
illegal, 7, "141; : persecution 
of its converts, 181, 190, 
241, 281; hellenistic, 858 ; 
sacerdotal and ceremonial, 


J udas, I 158, 1 

Judas Iscariot, . ‘41, 89, 90, 
112, 158. 

Jude, Ep. of,* I 57; see 
Adumbrations. 

Judgment, A, J 61. 

Judgment, The, - a 424, 


426-429 , 485, 

568, 571, 572; I si) 

Judiciary, J 287. 

Judson, U vii. 

Julia Bey ge of Augustus, 
J rv, 34 , 168, 517. 

Julia, granddaughter of Ti- 
berius, J iv, 241, 518 

Julia Sabina, ¢ J iv. 

J a Chaldzan, J 39 ; 


I 167. 
Julianus, J 171. 





199 


Julius Antonius, J 164. 
yf Sd 109, 148; fourth of, 


Junia, J 296, 514 
Juno, A 226, 396, 446, 494, 
Ju iter, 2a, 275, O77, 838, 
73, 413, 421, Bi 125 i 22; 
Stoic use of term, J 46, 62, 
58, 60, 68, 290, 338. 
Jupiter ‘Capitolinus, J 204; 


J upiter Pluvius, I 167. 
Jupiter, priest of, J 179,197, 
198 ; priesthood of, 169, 

197: temple of, 301; at 
Jerusalem, 825-827 ; ; at 
Rome, 204. 
Jurists, ‘J 171-173. 
Justice loves openness, J 
6 


Justinian, J 178. 
Justin Martyr,* J 70, 182, 


87, 48, 50, 51, 
i 


0, 9 , al, 
38, "42, 66, 67 81, 95, 113; 
116, 132, 133, 145, 146, 
150, 152, 154, 157, 1658 ; 
thinks that the J ust and 
Prophets of Judaism were 
subject to demons at death, 
42, 182; claims Socrates 
and others as Christians, 
147; his view of the Mo- 
saic Law, 151. 
Just Men, J 485; I 12, 18, 
» 60; U 5,9, 11 12: 
technical meaning of, 9, 
a: two ages of, [ 59; U 


56. 
Just People, J 495. 
Justus, J 569. 
Juvenal, *J 36, 67, 181, 457. 


Karirs, J 389. 

Kaltwasser, J 295. 

Kane, Dr. J =: 

ser I 19, 22, 28, 24, 25, 

;U 17, 119, 147. 

Kinglion of God, Zz 421, 426; 
from the East, 435, ” 436; 
of immortal king, 121, 

King, on Apostles’ Creed, 
U 52, 131 

King for the Romans, ex- 
pected from the East, J 
. 54, 117, 128, 148- 145, 


King from the East, I 207. 

Kings from the Fast, J 264. 

Kings, Book of, J 123, 264. 

Kneeling forbidden on Sun- 
day, U 77, 78. 

Koenig, U v, 166 

Koenigsberg, I 211, 


200 


~ 


co. Concordia, U 166, 
67 


Kuhnapfel, Rudolph, I 211. 
Lasgo, Pomponius, J 506, 
507. 


Labeo, the Jurist, J 161, 
162, 163, 171, 172, 519. 

Labeo, Titidius, J igi. 

Labienus, Titus, J 94, 

Laboring oe, J 378, 379. 

Laco, J 524-52 

Lactantius,* J 319, 387, mst 
404, 405, 406, 408, 410, 
414 429. vr 432, 486, 


441, 444 54: I 8, 
82, 174 300 3 205; U 8, 3l: 

Lahore, Tt 151. 

La Lande, J 363. 

Lamech, J 484. 

Lamentations, * J 435. 

Lamprias,* ‘J 18, 158; 
brother or son of Plutarch, 
287, 288. 

—- oF 474; I 2,22, 

9 S89 te 

Lang, Dr., J 389. 

Language, value of, J 365. 

Lanuvium, J 396. 

Laodicea, oe 83, 262; Coun- 
cil of, I 45. 

La Place, J 363. 

Lardner, z 230; I 149, 167. 

pr Time, Times, J 250, 


Latins, J 450, 452, 494, 543. 
Latin Versions, U 72, 
Latona, J 396. 

Laughter, ge ogy! A 452. 
Laurence, J 130 , 184, 


482; 1169; U us” 

Law, Ceremonial, Jewish, 
Mosaic, J 17, 24° 189, 234, 
846, 391-398, ‘467. 468, "482 ; 
T6, 8 9, 10, li, 13, 46, 47, 

, 60, 66, 67, 78, 
113, 178; new, 111, 206 ; 
Roman, 64, 164; none 
given by heathen deities, 
20; given through an 
angel, 24; a hindrance to 
the spread of Judaism, J 
; binding only on de- 
scendants of Abraham, 24, 
50, 348; observance of, 
deemed unessential, 482° 
483, 485; book of the, I 
142’. of God, 1738, 175. 

Law, civil or Roman, J iv, 
76, 111, 173, 174, 232, 234, 
306, 477. 

Law, election, J 153. 

Law, moral, J 21-24, 250, 


Law, of nature, J 178, 174; 
of universe, 174; 0 na- 
tions, 174. 

Law-less, rf 468 ; I 56, 
57, 174, 17 





INDEX IIL 


Jd 137, 236, 
Law-less One, J 236, 256; I 


82, 84. 
Lawyers, J 203. 
Lazarus, T 111, 122,125, 146. 
Learning, encouragement of, 
J 278. 


Lebbeus, I 158. 

Le Clere. J 393. 

Lee, Richard H. ,o 177. 
Legislation special, J 477. 
Le Grou, J 57 

Le Maire, J Ae 451, 

Le Nourry, Jd 502, 

es +s ilaatd 154; 16, 42, 84, 


Lepidus, J 156, 165, 447. 

Lepidus, J 476, 582: 

Lepidus Emilius, J 510. 

Lesbos, J 541. 

Leviticus, * J 53, 546. 

Lexicon, Pierer’ 8, IT 6. 

Lex Julia, J 170. 

Lex Mundi, J 174. 

Lex Nature, J 178, 174. 

Lex Papia Poppeee, pA 31, 170. 

Leyden, J 129 

Liberalists ; ; see aciniee 

Liberate, U 27, 28, 33, 34, 
40, 41, "43, 45, 67, 68. 

Liberation U 29, 41, 49, 54, 
57, 60, 68, 71, 95, 96; from 
the Underworld , depended 
on acceptance ‘of Chris- 
tianity, 54, 55; origin of a 
belief in it, 54. 

Liberator ; see Christ. 

a synagogues of, 


Law-lessness, 


ae ya spirit of, J 363. 


Libeisies,, * ublic, J 11, 14, 
78, 93, 180, 275, 278, 302; 
none in Greece, 589 ; re- 
placed by Domitian, 278, 

Library, I 216, 217 ; Vati- 
can, 203, 

Libya, J 164. 

Licinianus, J 296, 

gers and Scott, J 566; I 


10. 
Life, U 56, 57, 69, 128, 148- 
2; 8 ‘Gnostic term, J 
3854; meaning of, U 54, 
112, "148-151 ; according to 
the Valentinians, 26, 

Lightfoot, U 58. 

Lincoln, A., J 219. 

Lincoln Kaye; see Kaye. 

Lion, allegory ‘of, J 133, 184. 

Liris, J 77. 

Literary marts in Italy con- 
trolled largely by the aris- 
tocracy, J 28, 89. 

Literature, “ig | pace of, 
J 89, 93-95, 1 

Livia, Junior, or ‘Livilla, J 
iv, 181, 517, 529, 538, 540. 





Livia, mother of Tiberius, — 
J 160, 170, 517-520, 5380; . 
termed, Ulysses in " petti- 


Lint 3 6 179, 208. 
Lo 


bby, J 477. 


Locke, I 208. 
Logos, J 50, 256, 850, 8538- 
355, 470; 


T 20, 47, 75, 76, i77, '190- 


cnn census of, J 557, 
Longfellow, J 474. 
Longinus, J 171. 
Longinus Cassius, J 521, 
Longinus, C. C., J 171. 


of term, 8. 
Lord’s day, J 70; I 44, 45, 
84, 110, 137, 138 ; customs 


of, 
Lord’s Supper, I 49, 50, 51, 


Louis XVII., J 491. 

Love, altar to, I 26. 

Low Countries, I 208.. 
Lowrie, W. H., J 2, 3. 
Lowth, "I 435 

Lucifer, J 570. 

ee J 49, 242; I 162, 


Lome , 823, 

Luecke, J 483 ; Ui. 

Luke,* J 70, 283, 256, 384, 
442, 516, 544, 687; I 65, 
74, 85, 86, 90, 92, 95, 107, 
112, 124, 154, 184, 185, 186, 


187, 188, 189, 204. 
Lupercalia, J 169. 
Lupus, J 108, 322. 
Lusitanica, I ‘ll. 
Lutatius, J 195. 
Luther, U 166, 167. | 
Lutheran Quarterly, I 172. 
Lutherans, U 165-167. 
Luxury J 89-92 
Lycia, ae 496. 


Lygdus, J 538. 
Lee oe 207, 292, 335; 


Lysimachus; see Acme 
Lystra, I 21. 


ADO J 85, 229, oe 
240, 249, 368, "528 ; ; 
Months. ’ 

Macedonius, U 161. r 

Macer, Pompeius, J 98. 

Macherus, I 155. 

Macknight, I 207. 

Macrinus, J 302. 





WORDS AND SUBJECTS. 


Macro, J 102-105, 206, 207, 
520, 624-527, 531, 536, 


Madrid, , 
Mecenas, J 13, 14; I 82. 


Magi, 
Magicians, J 38, 249, 250. 
Majestatis, J 481, 
com, J iv; ; Uvi. 
Malugi oasis, 8 J197 
uginensis, Seryius a 
Mamre, J 345. — 
Man, an zon, I 50 ; creation 
of, iv. 
Manasseh, I 169, 170. 
Mandelium, I 109, 110. 
Siac top. tion U2, 
Manes (cp ute 
ee Ty U ie 
Monitear 3 J 390. 
a classes of, J 335, 


Manuscripts, endings of, J 
269. 


nus, Peay : 
Marcellus, J 7, 8, 154. 
Marcion, J 331 "334, 836 ; 

ut, doz, i 185, 187 ; 


Ws 59, 
66.98, 105, 129' 
180, SL, = 158 ; willing 
to use other Gospels than 
Luke’s, 7; thinks that the 
Creator’s places of reward 
and punishment for the 
Jews were in the Under- 
world, 113, 114, 121, 122; 
that the Ola "Testament 
Just Patriarchs and 
Prophets did not listen to 
_ Christ below, 5; and were 
not liberated 5; his view 
of Satan, 63, 64, 106; 
erases the Saviour’s words 
to the thief, 139. 
esa martyrdom of a, 


erat er J 54, 3381-336 ; 
I 88; U 4, 19, 113- 
? 


; 3 a J 564. 
Marcomannian war, J 545. 
~— s, prefect of Syria, J 


Marius, J 121. 


Marius, Sextus, J 528. 
Mark,* J 35, 442, 516, 544, 
545; 44 9, 65, 86, 


. 47, 4 
92, 124, 184, 185, 186, 202, 
203, 204, 305 : Epitome 
subjoined to, 90, 91. 
ron oe J 440. 


Telation, J 169, 
mat, Hye, 380; appreciated 





by Jews, 31, 178; less so 
by heathens, 31; Gnostic 
view of, 335; Plato’s view 
za. 578 ;« Paul’s view of, 


Martyrs, J 335; Se ie of," 
270; 

eee 6 34, 238, 2 

Mary, s Se 108 Mb, 16, 
130, 132,135, 171, 2 

Mary Ege ire Tés, 39, 90. 

Massachusetts, I 212, 

Massachusetts Hist. Society, 


I 218. 
Master-God, I 52, 200, 205. 
Maternus;: see Firmicus. 
Mathematicians, J 587, 588. 
, | Matter, Gnostic view of, J 
2: 


Matthew, * J 38,236, 255,394, 
442, 516, 544; 133, 47, 57, 


187, 188. 189, 201, 204, 206. 
Matthias, T 187. 
Maupertuis, J 364. 
Mauricus, Junius, J 284,293. 
Maximus, J 492, 
Maximus, wifé’s funeral, J 


814, 
May, 8. J., J 376, 377. 
= offered to idols, I 8, 9, 


Mechanic occupations, J 40, 


7 5 
Medes, J 151, 264, 494. 
Medburst, J 2, 3, 52, 384, 
Medical writers, J 371. 
Medicine, J 368, 370. 
Mediterranean, J 124, 
Megasthenes, J 383 
pene ha 474, 475 ; T1938, 


? 


Memoirs, by Tiberius, J 520, 
624, 584, 


Memphis, J 272. 
Menander, Pseudo, J 339, 


Mercieres, I 209. 
gf a god, J 63, 
3896 ; a planet, I 6! 
U F iet document in name 
of, 146. 

Mercury-Venus, J 570. 

Mercury ; see Hermes. 

Merivale, J 330, 534. 

Messala, J 12; I 164. 

Messalina, J 240. 

Messiah, J 54, 233, 338, 425, 
501; "Jews expected him 
to be human, 132-134 ; 
no prediction of, in Ery- 
threean verses, 425. 

Messianic excitement or ex- 
pectation, J 128, 144, 145, 
147, 229, 281, 235, 243, 259, 

0, 560. 


Methodius, * U 71, 107, 157. 
Mexico, J 376. 





201 


Micah,* J 24, 51. — 
Michael, J 437 ; 1169; U 


Middle Space, J 334; U 19, 
aaa 22, 25, 26, 123, 124° 


Middleton, J 345 ; I 144. 

Miletus, J 2 204, 249. 

Millennium, ¥ 45, (125?), 
256, 268 , 343, 412, 421, 480, 
499, 572; 131, 82; U 81, 
157, 

Milne, J 2. 

Milner, U iv. 

Minerva, J 201, 226, 277, 
446 ; oriestess of, 530. 

Minos, 572; T 25. 

Minucius Felix,* I 26, 47; 

109. 146. 


Mirabeau, J 363. 

Miracles, ‘J 266, 267 ; I iv, 
, 8, 4, 122, 128, 124; 
pseudo, J 544. 

Misenum, J 522. 

Mitchell, J 388; I 218. 

Mithridates, J 148, 144. 

Modestus, Metius, J 312. 

Moehler, U 5, 140. 

Meoesia, J 507. 

Moffat, J 3, 389. 

Mohammed, J 390. 

Mohammedans, J 15, 870. 

Monarchy, a theological 
term, "357, 359. 

Money, the Sacred, I 153. 

Monks, J 870. 

Monotheism, J 2, 14, 29, 30, 
66, 117, 142, 160-176, 175, 

7, 347, 86 , 369, 381, 386- 

388, 394, 

19, 57, 58, 67, 78, a. 208 
Christian, cs 462 ; origin 

f, 388, 892 

Monotheist, Monotheists, J 
233, 378, 374; T 14,15, 16, 
19, 57, 58, 69, 114, 124, 134, 
194, 205 ; expelled, J 279- 
281; recalled by Domitian, 
280 ; by Nerva, 286; re- 
wards of, 480 ; privilege of, 
431 ; the twelve, 1115, 116, 
1l7, ” 125 ; see Gentile. 

Monotheistic associations, J 


Monotheistic verses, J 337- 
841 


Monte Cassino, J 370. 

Montfaucon, J iv. 

Months, Macedonian, J 554, 
; 174 


555 ; 3 

Moore, J 182. 

Moors, J 564. 

Moral earnestness J 506-509, 
512, 518, 515. 

Moral evil, J 47, 48, 482. 

Moral purpose, af 2 384, 3886, 
887 ; aids mental develop- 
ment 364, 367. 

Moral Ruler, acknowledged 


202 


by communities only 
which believe in revela- 
tion, J 17, 390; I iii; ef- 
fect of belief in, J 2, 27, 
47, 60, 386, 387 

Moral sense (ep. Conscience), 
J 16, 28, 29, 195, 384, 385, 
478, 479 ; "addressed by 
Jewish revelation, 5, 16, 
17, 29, 61, 157, 391; and 
by Christianity, 5, "391 ; 
recognized by Jews as 
binding, 28; not so rec- 
ognized by heathens, 29 ; 
oA absent from heathens, 


Moral teachings, J 456-458. 
Moreri, 32. 
Morimo, J ia 
Morrison, J 2,5 
Mortality, U’ 32. 56, 148- 
152; means human na- 
ture, 148. 
Mosaic 2 Gast J 17, 391, 
4. 


893, 3 

Moses, J 38, 318, 338, 351 
355, 393, 427, 444, 464 ; 
iii, 8, 10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 22. 

1, 43. 7, 59, 67, 73, 

120, 122, 148, 191, i92 : 
U 9; institutions of, not 
essential, 7,8, 11, 12; nor 
sufficient, 151. 


J 95; I 15, 188, 


, 165. 

Mother of the Gods, J 317; 

a large stone, 398. 
Motion, origin of, J 573-575. 
Mount ‘Ceelius, J oll. 
Mount Ida, J 897, 440. 
Mount Sion, J 551. 
Mourning, J 518; a ques- 

tion of polities, 249, 527, 


535. 
Mucianus, J 10, 54, 270, 271, 
559. 


Muenscher, I xvi; U 102. 

Munchausen, J 555. 

Murdock, J 95; U 48. 

Musa, Emilia, J 510. 

Museeus, J 387, 

nos means arguments, J 
7 

Musonius; see Rufus, 

Myrrhina, J 122 

Mysia, J 368. 

Mystics, I 188. 

Mythology, J 566. 


NaBaTHEANS, J 47, 185. 

Nahum,* J 570. 

Naples, J 1389. 

Narbata, J 547. 

Narcissus J 78. 

Nartz, I 911. 

si Fareed Christians, 
47 


Nations, meaning Gentiles, 
» 472. 





INDEX III. 


Nature, J 388; identified 
with God, 64 ; law of, 178, 
174; beauties of," 378, 374. 

Naumachia, J 

Naval battle, J 77. 

Nazarene, J 319. 

Nazarenes, I 152, 186. 

Nazareth, I 171, 201. 

Neander, Ti iv, 5, 120, 126. 

Nepos, Marius, J 51. 

Neptune, J 189, 396, 495. 

Neratius, Priscus, J 171. 

io son of Germanicus, J 


Nero, em ae J 78, 82, 87 
137, 227, 241-254,'490; T 
35, 8 162, 163, 164, 165 ; 
expected return of, z 128) 
491-504 ; rebellion under, 
9, 222, 545-560 ; his gold- 
en palace burnt, 299 ; will 
assume to be Christ, ’ B01; 
precursor of the Devil, 508; 
praises Jews, 494. 

Neros, pseudo, J 492. 

Nerva the Emperor, J 10, 14, 
80, 87, 280, 286, 293, 308; 
321, 325, 521, 564. 

Nerva, the father, J 171,519, 
520-522. 


Nerva, the son, J 171, 

Newcome, J 471, 

New Jersey, T 211. 

New Testament, J 394; 
Apocryphal, I 161, 182, 

New Year’s, J 489. 

pen York Tribune, J 322, 


Nicxa, J 301, 303. 

Nicholas, J 577. 

Nicodemus, I 106, 107, 108, 
12 125, 184 


? 


135, 142 : Gospel of, 4,5; 
154 


U 154. 
Nicolaitans, ft 262, 2638. 
Nicolaus, Jil 
Nicomachus, 5 368. 
Nicomedia, J 41, 301, 302. 
Nicopolis, J 249, 523. 
Nicostratus, 
Niebuhr, J 297, 298, 
Nile, J 152, 924, 
ee ae? deluge, J 55, 408, 


Noachic Sibyl, J 446. 
Noah, J 24, 55, 404, 411, 446, 
472’; -s 12, i 18, 39 59, 


148; 200 5, 8, 12; a 
preacher’ a Section ‘or 
Rectitude, J 485. 


Norton, J 331, 334, 335, 336, 
846, 350, 351, 358, ” 364, "4703 
T 2i, 41,50, 71, 78, 92, 132, 
184, 186, 201, 304, "208 ; U 


Novatian, U 71, 161-162. 
Noyes; J 435. 

Numa Pompilius, J 98, 401. 
Numenius, J 45. 





Numerals, Arabic, J iv. 
Oatus, J 84, 35. 
Occi 90. 


ner buildings burned, J 


Octavius, rae father of 
August 

Octavius, Onelus, J J 121, 

Octavius, Cneius, nephew of 
the above, J J 402. 

Octavius, Marcus, J 402. 

Octavius, Publius J 92. 

Ode , Centennial, 451, 452. 

Odoacer, J 887. 

(Edipus, J 590. 

Offering, J 462; U 85, 86; 
ep. Sacrifice 

Ogdoad, J 884, 854; I 50; 


Old Testament, J 28, 45, 51, 
58, 122, 166, 260, 264, 445 ; 
appealed to moral sense, 
157; extravagant use of, 
344-848 ; teachings of, 419, 
438 ; predictions in, I 1, 
14, 17, 37, 88, 39, 85, 205 ; 


J ustin’s view of, 199. 


276, 312, 313, 478. 
Ophites, T 183. 
Opimius, L., J 210. 
Opposition lines, J “484, 451- 


453. 
Opsopeeus, J 4038, 407, 417, 
420, 439, 440 ; U 187. 


Oracle, Pythian, J 4038, 404 ; 
eo to tell truth, 157, 


58 

Oracies, J 168, 169; I 24; 
BES: enti from demons J 

88; extinction of, 157, 158, 

168, 175, 287- 290, 440. 

Oracles, Sibylline ; see Sibyl- 
line Oracl es, 

Oratio ad Graecos,* I 75, 193. 

Orcus, U 114, 149. 

Oriental Church, J 348; for- 
bids eating blood, 15. 

Orientai countries, J 568. - 

Origen,* J 38, 252, 356, 374, 
462, 474, 488 ; T 16, 26,39, . 


173 ; allegorizes’ Jerboa 
Egypt, etc., 28, 24, 145; 
expatiates on the blood, 
as containing the soul, 88 

his view of Adam’s fall ‘aan 


its consequences, 24, 103; 





WORDS AND SUBJECTS, 


his method of quoting 
Scripture, 188; mistake 
concerning him, 102 ; view 
of opponents mentioned by 
. ? ? > > 

Originator, J 324. 

Orion, I 148. 

Orosius,* J 129, 252; I 65, 


Orpheus, J 577; Pseudo,* 
337 ; I 179. 

Orthodox, I 194; see Catho- 

“erie eangme I 148, 144, 


Otho, J 80, 85, 108, 123, 127, 
181, 490, 495 

Otto, J 338, 355, 441, 461; 
U 119, 


Outsiders, J 463. 
Overwork, J 378, 380. 


Pactinus, J 331. 

Palatine Hill, J 202, 330. 
Palatium, J 500, 543 
Palestine, J 128, 3, 578. 
Paley, I 62. 
Palm-Sunday, I 84, 110. 
Palm-trees, seventy, J 346. 
Palodes, J 289. 
Pamphilus, J 339, 340. 
Pamphylia, J 327. 

Pan, J 289. 

Panzetius, J 41, 61. 
Pandateria, J 280, or 


Paphos, J "323, 497, 
i , a2, 


Papinius, Sextus, J 2138. 
Paradise, Il 


164 ; its localit according 
to Jews 102, oe accord- 
ing to Paul, 101-103 ; ac- 
cording to Christians, 101- 
109; placed south of the 
torrid zone by Tertullian, 
J 431; U 108; whether 
an intermediate abode, 104, 
109-112; the Martyr’s priv- 
ilege, see Martyrs ; Adam’s 
ejection from, 24, 70, 108, 
108; restoration to, 53: 
Christ opens the way to 
it, 47; a new priest, ac- 
cording to the Jews, was 
to do the same, 47; dif- 
ficulty in the Saviour’s 
words concerning it, 138; 

the penitent thief’s admis- 
sion to it, 188, 139, 156 ; 

Garden of, 103: 

“Parents, duties of, J 378, 379; 
considerateness towards, 
374, 375, 419. 

Paris, 10. 





Paris, a freedman, J 87. 

Parliament, J 192, 479, 563. 

Parthia, J 186 

Parthians, J 185, 187, 264, 
9, 492 ; king of, 


4 2, 493° 
Passover, J 6, 151, 152, 229, 


546 ; ; 

Passow, J 29, 471, 496. 

Patmos, J 1. 

Patriarchs, J 350, 356, 485 ; 
I 38, 59, 148, 192, 

Patriarchs and Prophets (cp. 
Abraham, Prophets), I 31; 
punished "in and liberated 
from the Underworld ac- 
cording to the Manichzeans, 
U 27-28; rewarded there, 
but not liberated, accord- 
ing to Marvion, see Mar- 
cion ; according to the 
Catholics, they listened to 
Christ and were liberated, 
8-18 ; a few of them, ac- 
cording to some Catholics, 
did not go to the Under- 
world, 45, 46,47 ; whether 
controlled by evil spirits 
at death, see Samuel. 

Patriarchs of the Gentiles, 
U 138. 


Patriarchs, Testaments of ; 
see Testaments. 

Patricianism, J 79 ; opposes 
improvement, 5, 11, 35 ; 
or towards slaves, 86, 


Patrician party (cp. Senate), 
896, 447; prosecutes op- 
ponents for unbelief, 8 ; 
sample of these charges, 
7,8; drives opponents from 
the Senate, 13; ignorant 
of religion which it up- 
holds, 10, 116 ; insincerity 
of," 114-1 16, 225 ; revolt of, 
181-183, 186-195, 522-531. 

Patrician rebellions, J 587. 

Patuleius, J 510. 

Paul (cp. Index of Scripture 
from Romans to Thessalo- 
nians), J 229, 231-240, 254, 
256, 257, 262, 334, 381, 496, 
504; I9, 21 "28, 43, 44,47 
62, 63, 69, 78, 85, 91, 161- 
166, 188, 214 ; U 66, 101, 
102; 104, "105, 118, 153 ; his 
expectations at Rome, J 

; disappointment of, 
248-251; did he teach the 
Liberation ? U51, 52; seiz- 
ure and martyrdom of, 
J 248-252, 545. 

Paul of Samosata, J 356. 

Paula, I 189. 

Paulina, J 190. 

Paullinus, C. 8., ng 

Pausanias, J 417, 

Paxi, J 289 





203 


Pearson, U 27, 168; he mis- 
takes as to the belief of the 
Fathers, 52-53, 128-129. 

Pedanius Secundus, J 88. 

Pedo, J 321. 


Penelope, J 289. 
Penitent thief, U 188, 156. 
Pennsylvania, Western, Jd 


Pennus, Pompeius, J 210. 

Penny Cyclopedia, J 590. 

Pentateuch, J 393. 

ia J 134 ; I 31, 115, 
173; U 6, 45, 50, 146, 158; 
meaning Gentiles, i 124° 
406, 407 ; meaning Jews, 
850, 406, 436; the wise, 


4 
People of God, J 265, 268, 
270. 


Peoples, meaning Jews, J 
472, 494, 495 

Peoples, The, U 172. 

Perea, J 560. 

Posenenm, J 14; ep. For- 


Permanan: J 11, 262. 
Peripatetics, J 852 T 68. 
Perszeus, J 41. 

Perseus, I 23. 

Persia, J 47 , 446. 

Persians, J 152, 494, 568. 
Peschito, U 48. 

Pessinus, J 397, 398. 
Pestilence at Rome, J 275, 


Peter, J 254, 545; I 8, 11, 
, 50, 56, 69, 90, 92, 112° 
ist, 188, 202) 203: U 


2 

483 ; I 56,57, 
167 ; arrested, J 114 ; mar- 
ty rdom of, 252 ; addresses 
a Heathen mother, U 
126 ; his belief concerning 
Christ’s preaching to the 
spirits, 48-49; this belief 
was heretical, according to 
views of the second cen- 
tury; 128-129 ; was Clement 
afraid to quote it? 13,127; 
argument from  Peter’s 
view, for integrity of the 
Gospel, 137. 

Peter, a, at Alexandria, J 
462. 


Peter, preaching of, J 475; 
I 138 ; U 15. 
Petillius, Lucius, J 401. 
Petillius, Quintus, J 401. 
Petronius, Publius, J 521. 
Petronius, J 216, 218-220, 
Pharaoh, I 122, 126. 
Pharisees, J 159 ; I 88, 112 ; 
their views accord with 
Stoic ones, J 42. 
Pharsalia, J 55, 435. 


204 


Phidias, J 378. 
Philemon, Ep. to, J 249; I 


Philemon, Pseudo, J 339, 
341 


Philetus, J 250. 

Philip, J 560. 

Philip, a Greek, J 289. 

Philip, king, I 16d. 

Philip, the apostle, J 229, 
238, - -f eS 184 ; daugh- 
ters 

Puli, 5 “O31, 233, 249; I 


Philippians,* Ep. to, J 249. 

Philo,* J iv, 34, 85, 96-107, 
112, 163, 177, 204, 206, 
374, 516, 519; I 67; U 
105; his use of the term 
é Father,” J 58; identified 
with patricianism, 97 ; am- 
bassador from aristocratic 
conspirators, 102. 

Philopatris, J 230. 

Philosophers, e 12, 

271, 288, 382, 383, 63; 
67, 68 ; See diat 68. 
Philosophumena, * J 355, 
; 115, 188; U 21, 26, 
88. 152. 

Philosophy, I 66-68; U 12, 
14; Seneca’s definition of, 
J 49; Greek, 173, 283, 312) 
883 ; I 66-68 ; Hebrew, 67; 
origin of, 66, 67 ; antiquity 
of, 66, 67 ; the gift of God 
to the Gentiles as a pre-~ 

aration for Christianity, 
; 9] 148 ; derived from 
Christ, 147. 

Phineas, T 141. 

Phocylides, Pseudo, J 842, 
457, 459. 

Phoebus, k 407, 489. 

Pheenicia, J 184, 

Phoenix, U vi. 

Photius, U 17. 

Phrygia, J 41, 397. 

Physicians, J 13, 368, 370, 
871, 388, 496,587, 588. 

Pierer’s Lexicon, I 6. 

Piety, towards God, J 448; 
to parents, 150, 448 ; ; to the 
state, 7, 83, 150; towards 
the gods, 26. 

Pilate, J 516; surrender of, 

149 ; Wife of, Sion 
121; see Acts of 

ilate. — 

Pilate’s Report, J 442; i3e 
17, 105, 142°149; U 136 
154, 1 


Bb. 

Pilot, term for God, J 51. 

Pindar, he 

Pisan coins, J 129. 

Piso, J 181, 185, 187, 194, 
479, 480 542 : his "trial, 
lll; 113, 191-193; his 





character, 184, 515. 


INDEX Itt. 


Pistus, J 559. 

Pittsburgh, J 521. 

Pius Aurelius, J 511. 

Place, The Place, U 128; 
Place of Souls, or Psychi- 
cal Place, 20, 24, 25; Su- 

ercelestial Place of Plato, 
5; of the Valentinians, 
128; Holy Place, 118 ; Al- 
lotted Place, 117, 118; In- 
visible Place, 52, ll ff 
Place of Glory, 118. 

Places (cp. Right Hand), 
1 aGB, for men hereafter, 

Planetarium, J 59. 

Planetiades, J 290. 

Siete names of, J 68, 484; 


U 

Plato,* J 6, 25, 150, 208, 368, 
399; ry 454, "464, "565, 568- 
580, 590; I 19, 68, 78 81; 
his use of ‘‘ Father,” J 58, 
571; deems study of the 
universe unholy, 578; his 
views of God, 573, 574 ; ; his 
views of demons, I 26; 
—— of, 76; U 2, 25, 


Platonics, I 68. 

Platonists, I 68. 

Plebeian chastity, altar to, J 
177, 178. 

Pleroma, J 334; I 77; U 
19, 20, 25, 26, 123, 125. 

Pliny, Jun..* J 36, 181, 
200, 209, 386, 295, 296, 297; 
300-805, 3127318 "394, 564; 
erects a "temple, 814 ;’ falsi- 


, 282. 
Pliny, Sen.,* J 138, 38, 92, 


401, 519, 588; 1 15, 69; a 
pantheist J il. 
Plutarch ,* 5 20, 47 

Br, 143) 288, 287, 288, 294 
297, 305-810, 811, 408, 510, 

BOD ; I 64; indecision ‘of, - 

10; ’ ridicules superstitious 

heathens, 306; and Jews, 


805. 
Poets, heathen, J 374. 
Pollio, establishes public li- 
brary, J J 14; entertains 
Jewish princes, 73; father 
of Asinius Gallus, 180 ; his 
political position, 73. 
Pollio, Vitrusius, T 168. 
geo, ,a god, J 202, 221; I 
6 


Polybius, J 227. 

Polycarp,* I 55, 198, 198; 
118, bib "martyrdom 

of, J 319, 4 

Polycles, x 510. 

Polycrates, J 204, 238. 

Polyhistor; see Solinus. 

Polytheism, J 159, 837, 461. 

Pompedius, J 212. 





Pompeianus 
Pompeii, J sae 
Pompeius Pennus, J om 
Pompey, J 68 iA 
vig 146, 


Pompo, J 401. 
por) sear J iv; 
. wit mee superstiti 

8, 211, 241, 242 _ ant 
ig Jil qi, 

; c 

with unbelief, J os, charge 
Pomponius, M., J 12. 
Ponpocinen the jurist, J 

i 


Pontia, J 530. 

Pontifex Maximus, J 165, 

Pontiffs, Heathen, J 564; 
Christian 871. 

Pontus, J 84, 118, 168, 281, 


Pope (the poet), J 388. 

Pope, the, J 261. 

Poppa, J 9, 242, 248, 250, 
2538; a convert to Judaism, 


, 245, 463. 
Popuiar Assemblies, J 109, 


Popular rights associated 
with Judaism, J 865. 

Pork, J 15, 305, 318; chief 
meat of Greeks and Ro- 
mans, 188, 189. 

Porphyry,* J 847, 348, 445. 

Portrait-painting, J 373, 519. 

Posidonius, J 41, 5: 61,811, 

Pott, U 39, 128, 13 

Powers (ep. ee Bos 
ge U 89, 92, 93, 95 

Practical monotheism, 
Practical piety, J 250, 448, 
464-466, 496 ; I 57, 58, 73, 
146, 148, 180, 

Practical monotheists, J ont 
418, 422, 428,466; U 121 

Praeneste, ‘J 195. 

Preetorian soldiers, J 582, 
537 ; guards, 526 

Preetorium, . 114, ‘las, 119, 
120, 129, 145 

Prayer, to whom offered, J. 
465, 470; posture in, 343. 

Preaching of Christ below, 
U 48-49, 130-181. 

Preaching ‘of Peter, J 475; 
I 188; 


Predictions, I 1, 72; see Old 
Testament. 

Preparation, I 137. 

Presbyters, U 108 

Priam, J 403, 420, 588. 

Priest, a, to introduce the 
new era, J 117; U 47. 

Priestley, U iv. 

Priests, J 362, 370 

Primate of the Senate, J 518, 


> 5384. 





Prince (cp. God) of 8 
world, U 58, 59, 79, 
of the Powers of the hem 
88 84; of the Demons, 
of Darkness 94, 
Priscilla, J 231. 
Priscus ; see Helvidius. 
Procla ; see Pilate, wife of. 
Proclus, J 579. 
Proculus, J 171. 
Prophecies, denunciatory, J 


Prophet, false, J 266, 268. 
Prophet, The, J 359 ; "of God, 
502 ; ep. False. 


si true, or of truth, I | Ram 


Recapaie spirit, J 354, 355, 


Prophets (cp. Patriarchs, 
Abraham, Samuel), J 38, 
Mi, 143, Ry 425; I 59, 
; of 
oh, 147 ; "needed ’ as 
Christ’s precursors below, 
U 44-47, 


Prosecutors on shares, J 194, 
208, 475-481, 582. 
Jd 159, 471; I 


Protestant Bp reeeonureh, 
U 170,171 

Protestants unwilling to ac- 
sere a liberation, U 
52, their views of 
rare descent, 165-171. 


Providence, J ‘4, 59, 858, 
Proxenus, J 368. ; 
Prusa, J B02, B04. 


Prussia, J 52; I 211, 212. 
Psalms,* J 61, 128, 485; I 


Pseudo heathen documents, 


J 336-843. 
Ptolemais, B 220. 


Publicius Certus, J 318. 

Public spirit, no term for it 
in German, J 367. 

Punic War, J 195. 

Punishment of the wicked, 
J 429, 480; their relief, 


Punishments, J 75,76, 285, 
361, 515; corporal, un- 
known oo 506. 


Putnam’s Monthly, d “f 491. 
Pyriphlegethon, I aa 
’ 


Pythagoras, J 
Pseudo, 340. 
Pythagoreans, I 68. 





WORDS AND SUBJECTS. 


Pythia ; see Oracle. 
Pythian Priestess, I 25. 


Quapratvs, I 184. 
Questiones et Respo' ad 
Orthodox.* U 77, Ps, 8, 182. 
Quietus or Cyetus, i i. 323. 
Quindecemvirs, J "400, 431. 

Quintilian,* J 536. 
\ 


Race, J 474; Third, I 66; 
Jewish, A 


118, 180, 182 
Ransomer ; see Christ. 
Raphael, J 427. 

Rasos or Rosos, I 130. 

Reason, J 50, 174,354; 147, 
195, 196. 

Reate, I 163. 

Reconciliation to God, U 92- 


Rectitude, preacher of, J 485. 

Regicide, J 85, 86. 

Regions, Lower, I 171. 

Regulus, J ott, 812, 318, 
524, 5265. 

Religion eS 198; Greek, Ro- 

ei 106 ; "tribes desti- 

tute ‘of any, T 389. 

Renovation, The, J 45, 57, 


140, 
Republic, z 12, 30, 194, 578. 
Republican institutions, J 


367. 

Restoration, U ae 

Resurrection, the, J 44, 57, 
129, 251, 421, 426, or, 'b72, 
580; I 5, 45, 74; a Jew- 
ish doctrine, J 238 ; two- 
fold meaning of the Greek 
word, 60, 61; Stoic views 
of, 44 ; T 30; ‘Jewish views 
of, J 45, 60, 499; I 30; 
of Christians, I 30, 31; 
Tertullian’s view of, U 
100 ; physical, J 60 ; 
427, 499; T 80, 81 U 89, 

1 6, 156-161 ; of 

souls, "og 159; a debt due 
the body, I 30 ; of Just 
coincident with that of 
Unjust, U 99, 116; earlier 
than the latter by 1000 
years, I 31, 34; U 100. 

ig i hagecretlattaat ccna 


oe of Lazarus, I 
125, 146; of Jesus, 85 $8, 
106, 20, 187, 188, 139, 142; 
of patriarchs and prophets 
accompanying it, 88, 148, 
149 ; ideas included under 
it, U 838. 

Resurrections, two, J 45,572. 





205 


Retribution, J 339, 340. 

Revelation, J 17; 60, 3890, 
891, 394 ; through Moses, 
through Jesus, T iii; none 
from heathen deities, 20. 

Revelation,* or Apocalypse, 
J 44, 70, 126, 186, 255-270, 
483, 486-490. 

Revolt of Jews, under Nero, 
J ; begun by for- 
eigners, 558 ; under Trajan, 
821, 322 ; under Hadrian, 
825-3829 ; "under Antoninus 
Pius , 360. 

Rhadamanthus, J 572; I 25. 

ar J 348, 344 ; I 


45 
Rhetoric, J 278; Te noe, 
of, at Rome, 1i, 1 
Asiatic school of, aor 
Rhodes, J i 588. 67, 160 
Rhodes 9 
175, 860, 512, 514. 
Right and ore Hand, for 
heavenly and earthly 
Eee or things, I 21, 25, 


Robinson, Prof. E., I 151. 


Rogers, J 378. 

Roman aristocracy ; see Aris~ 
tocrac 

Roman hurch, J 348, 344. 

Roman citizenship  pur- 
chased, J 240. 


Roman Empire, I 61; the 
Wicked One, J 503, "504; 
its head the opponent of 


God, 221, 222, 285; new 
capital ‘proposed, 214; 
erected, 369. 


Roman, fugitive, J 497; so- 
ciety, I 69; masters, 118; 
rule, 119 ; power, 159; gov- 
ernment, 208. 

Roman Law; see Law. 

near Ep. to, J 58, 151; 


48, 58. 
Romans, I 56, 82, 173, 208. 
Rome, I 17, 28, 34, 68, 156, 
203 ; fire at, J 80, 248, 274, 
275, 360, 545; anticipated 
destruction of, iii, 118, 120- 
135, 268, 489, 498, 562 ; I 
88; how made eternal, J 


0. 

Rome, Papal, J 884. — 
Routh, J B56 ; I 46, 47,198, 

194, ‘198 ; 09. 
Rubellius Blandus, J 621. 
Rubrius, J 8. 
Rufinus, U 161, 162. 
eg Trebonius, J 292, 


3 
Rufus, I 129. 
Rufus, Musonius, J 55, 65, 
284. 


Rufus, a senator, J 451. 
sha Faith,* U 71, 161, 


206 


Russia, J 95, 577. 
a ig Arulenus, J 283, 
2 


Sasaotu, J 414 
Sabazian Jove, Ta 141, 195. 
Sabbath, J 70, 158, 160, 164, 


, 43, 
84; 108, 109, 118, 123, 136, 
137, 138, 146, 147, 148 ; 
term for Sunday, 44; ces. 
sation from labor on, 42, 
111; burning of lamps on 
the, J 67, 228; observance 
of, said to have begun with 
Moses, 343. 
Sabina, Julia, J iv. 
Sabinus, 108. 
Sabinus, Masurius, J 171. 
Sabinus, Poppeeus, J 5238. 
Sacrifice, J 339, 340. 
Sacrifice or Sacrifices 
18, 21, 25, 206; U $5. 86 
not commanded by God, 6; 
862, 391, 392, 457; a right 
life better than 438, 461; 
heathen, 275, 27 , 407, 455. 
Sacrifices to Domitian » J 285, 
286; to Caligula, 220, ee 
to Augustus, 536; to Se- 
janus, 518; forbidden by 
Tiberius, 518. 
Sadducees, J 44; I 157. 
Salamis, J 323, 497. 
Sallust, J 121. 
Salvation and being saved, 
U 5, 6, 14, 15, 24, 28, 37, 
? ’ ’ 43, 46, 53, 67, 
69, 186: meaning of these 
terms, 41, 127, 160. 
Salvation of the world, ef- 
fected by Christ’s descent 
to the Underworld, U 24, 
58, 127. 
esa I 169, 170; U 58, 


Samaria, J 235; I 34. 

Samaritans, I 84, 

Samius, J 478. 

Samos, "J 204. 

Sampsigeramus, J 118. 

Sameul, I 28; did 
he go to ry Undarwnld, 
U 30, 44-47 ; was he con- 
aaa by a demon, 42, 121, 


Samuel Aniensis, J 490. 
Sandars, J 83, 172 -174. 
Sandwich Islands, J 590. 
Sanhedrim, J 106; I 128, 157. 
Sanvalle, J 322. 

Saracens, J 371. 

Sardians, J 164, 511 
Sardinia, J 124, 188, 189, 


Sardis, J 154. 
Sarmatia, J 664. 





INDEX III. 


Sarmatian war, J 561 

Satan, J 48, 140 
263, 265, 268, iy 575 ; et 
23, 70, 170 ; the "angel of 
death, U 5S ; Lord of the 
Underworld, 59-64, 182, 
133; ruler of the Gentiles, 
58, 59 ; prince or ruler of 
this world or age, and of 
the Powers of the Air, 
see Prince; deceived as to 
Christ’s incarnation, 78- 
84, 92; why called a 
dragon, 80. 

Satan ; see Devil, Cosmocra- 
tor, World- ruler. 

Satisfaction, its use by Ter- 
tullian, U2 

Saturday 68, 343. 

Sera O 4: 152, 167, 412, 414 

37; reign of, J 

572: Italy sacred fo, 413; 
ignored by Augustus, 153; 
day of, 69; Hill of, ee 
first king of Italy, 69 ; 
planet, I 173. 

Saturnian kingdoms, J 414. 

Saturninus, J 189, 190. 

Saviour, J 33, 357, 458, 564; 
I 22, 76, 95, 149’; the zeon, 
sy iB acrostic on, J 444; 
Sibylline prediction of, 453. 

Savoy, J 124. 

Saxony, J 95. 

Scaurus, Mamer, J 530, 581. 

Schleiermacher 79. 

Schoettgen, U 153. 

School, J_ 385, 386. 

Schools, J 378. 

Schroeckh, I 218, 

Scipio, Afr. » Maj., J 83, aq 

Scipio, Afr., Min., J 83, 150 

Scipio, C. Hispal., ie 195. 

Scipios, J bat. 

Scotland, J 3 

Scripture, tata UT Ee 


Sculpture, J 3 

Scythia, Sey sie, 7 59, 230. 
Sebaste, J 546. 

Secular games, J 169, 
Secular Poem, J 451. 

rene wien Miss, J 379; I 


16 

Sejanus, J 97, 98, 103-105, 
150, 511, 242, 520, 587 ; 
murdered by the Senate, 
104, 524-529. 

Seleucia, J 41. 

Self-culture, J 380. 

Self-motion, J 578. 

Semi-Jewish Christians _ 8. 

Semisch, U 116, 132, 1 

Semler, T 69. 

Senate, J 213,279, 397, 398, 
448; I 15, 19, 20, 61, "167 ; ; 
remodelled by Julius Cee- 
sar, J 5; and by Vespa- 
sian, 10,11; ejection from, 





of monotheists iy friends _ 
of pop pale ee ¥)-Gy'dega 
14, 108, 160-165, 476; con: 
victed by Caligula <, 208, 
212, 528, 584; controlled old 
religion, 5, 6, 385; usurpa- 
tions by; 108-112; deemed 
to be the republic, 85, 537 ; 
its acts published under 
Julius Cesar, 93 ; 
to be published under 
Augustus, 98, 161, 476; 
publication of its treasury 
disbursements, 519; rapid 
passing 8 Oar. of its mem- 
3; murders a 
member, 1D: ” ‘controlled 
law-making, bal. 
Senatorial families, J 286. 
Senators, property’ y et ied, 
tion of, 61, 162, 
611; aaa to visit 
Egypt, 100 ;. or to leave 
Rome, 224; required to 
burn frankincense, 167; 
murdered by Claudius, 
ete a fae ie os ae 
neca,,* i Os 
78.79, 84, 7188.4 2s, ou at 227, 
228, 229, 234,24 258, 530; 
his view of "God 59, 60 5 
banished, 75; recalled, 2275. 
pseudo letters of, I 4, "i612 


166. 
array Herennius, J 288, 
Sepphoris, J 548, 558, 557, 
Septa, J 204. 


Septimius, J 272. 
Septuagint, J 352, 502, 565; 


Sepulehres, J 301, 302, 303. 
eee GS 


Seres, 
Serica, J th 
Serranus, C. A., J 896. 
Sertorius, F 1, 

Servilius, Marcus, J 510, 
Servius Malu nents z 1. 
Seventh day 82, 173 
Severus, J 96 

Severus, Julius, J 326, 327, 


Severus, Sulpicius,* J 252. 

Sexes, relations of, I 8. 

Shadow, term for the Middle 
Space, U 22. 

Shanghai, J 384. 

Shang-te, Shin, J 2, 8, 52. 

Shepherd of Hermas; see 
Hermas. 

Shiloh, I 22. 

Siam, a iv. 

Sibyl, or Sibylla, J 142, ae 
I 7, 19, 71,72, 188; U 184; 
names ‘of, J 446 5; ’ daugh- 





WORDS AND SUBJECTS. 


ter of Berosus, 387, 449; 
daughter-in-law of Noah, 
411, 482; death-pen- 
alty for re her writ- 
, 166; books of, con- 
cealed by Homer, 420 ; her 
ae. suppressed, "165, 


1 
Sib line Oracles *I 19, 20 
@, 71 1, $5, 172-179 : 
“ 108, O36, 137, 171- 
aban 
ewis 
120-130, "165, 340, 402-440° 
99’; Christian ristian, 440- 


446, 499-504. 
Sibyllists, r71. 
Sibyls, T 145 145 
Siciliuns, J 152. 
Sicily, J 115, 208. 
Sidon, J 548. 
Silani, J 527. 
Silanus Marcus, J 185, 523. 
Silas, J 1 
Silas, a Christian J 282. 
Silence, a Gnostic gon, J 


354. 
Silianus, A. L. N., I 166. 
Silius, J 182. 
Simeon, J 320; sons of, I 


Simon, J 554; I 34. 
Simon, the yrenian, I 129, 


, 815, 

820, 455, 471, 581; I 218; 
manumission of, i 115; 

can abe sale, 

A Smith, D . of Antig. J, 14, 


66, 112? 
195, 136; a 170, 12, 188, 
214; 362, 425, 475, 48 1; 517, 
Z Dict. of 
Biog., 6, 13, 42, 47, 146, 
171, 195, "997, 988 297, 298, 
300, 825, 348, 373, 403, 414, 
455,504, 520, 570,580, "587 
182, 176, 191; errors in, 4 
561; Dict. of "Geog. og FE 41, 
368, 446, 474,518. 
Smith’s Classical ag 


U 97. 
myrna, J 
Smyth, Yectare,. + 177, 192, 
Sneezing, J 513. 

Social gatherings, J 293-295. 
Socrates 29, 565- 
ey 4 19; ‘called 


Sodom, I 176 ; | 6, q; 17. 
Sodomites, U 5,7 
tor system in’ Underworld, 





Soldiers disbanded, J 386. 

Sole-rulership, J 359. 

Soli, J 41. 

Solinus, * J 439. 

Solomon, J 346; sepulchre 
of, 326 ; Psalms of, 329, 

Solon, 436 

Son of God, I 117, 121, 125, 
131, 148, 150, 152, 1 
159, 172, 178, 174, 179, 
190; 196, ’200. 

Son of Man, J 260, 268. 

Soothsayers, J 38, 62, 638, 


225, 455, 542. 
Soothsaying, J 175; by Jews, 
87, 88; by Roman digni- 
taries, 40. 
Sophists, J 420. 
Sophocles, ag J 337. 
Sosthenes, J 
Sotion, J "188. 


Soul, J 486, 571, 578, 574; 
U 19; distinguished from 
spirit, J 46 i in a 
blood, I 46; U 87, 88; 
cp. Sp dirt. 

South Garuihias; J 234; I 
211, 212. 


Southern institutions, J 478. 
eo sacrifice of a, J 226, 
5: 


Space; see Highth, Middle, 
Fourth. 

Spain, J 479; I 61, 208; 
Arabian schools in, the re- 
sort of Europe, J 370. 

Sparta, J 417. 

Spartianus, * J 326. a 

Paeebe fabrication of, J 


Spirit, J 486; Divine, I i: 
identified with fire, J 46 
prophetic, I 205; distinct 
from soul, U 19, 88-89 
148, 152; see Sos Spirit. 

Spirits, U 111, 
149 ; (evil “3B, 95, 
96, 120, 1 , 148, 149 ; see 
Demons, Powers, World- 
rulers. 

Spiritsin prison, J 486. 

Springs, the twelve, J 346. 

Stallbaum, J 579. 

Standards, objected to, at 
Jerusalem, 516 ; hom- 
age of, T 85, 118, 114. 

Stars, heaven of the fixed, 
J ; wandering, 484. 

State control, J 577, 578. 

Statius, J J 148. 

Statuary, J 3738. 

Statue, of liberty, J 527; of 
Augustus, 75; of Tiberius, 
5384 ; of Claudius, I 34, 35; 
of Simon Magus, 84; of a 

Sabine Des 34, 

Statues ; see Images, 

Stegas, I 128. 

Stephen, J 34. 





207 


J 40-66, 1738, 290, 

308 got 888 5 bs 16, 19, 

86, 58, 66 , 166; expul- 
sions of, 1 14, 54,'55, 271, 
272, 283 ; . prophetic old 
woman of, 486; none born 
after Hadrian’s time, 65, 
66 ; originate in Asia Minor 
and Syria, 41, 54, 571. 

Strabo * J 11, 46, 168, 176, 
198, 894, 402. 

Strangers, to be honored, J 


Strauss, I xiii, bs 

Stronach, J 3,5 

Stroud, I 211, 33. 

Stuart, "T 502. 

Suetonius, * J 79, 85, 86, 89, 
138, 167, 175, 185, e189 
190, 192; 291° 447, 522, 538° 
548, 559; i 85; features 
of his work, J 535 

Suicer, J 70; U 152, 158. 

Suicide, J 193, 224, 479, 506, 
507, 52 ga roposition con- 
cerning 

Suidas,* gf 87, 39, 168, 224, 
360, 417, 418, 440; I 167, 


152. 
Suilius, Pub., J 478, 480, 
507 


Sulpicius ; see Severus. 
Sulpitius, Servius, J 19. 
Sun, day of the, J 69; eclipse 


? ? 
edicts concerning, 45; not 
the Sabbath, 44, 45 ; Palm, 
84, 110; see ’ Lord’s Day. 

Superstition, J 305-308. 
Superstitions foreign, J 30, 
6, 472; see Foreign 
superstitions. 
Suppression of Documents, 
J 92-95. 


Supreme Being, J 259, 263, 
278, 836, 349-358 461, 462, 
469, 470, 487; 1 15, 16, 
173, 180, 194, 207 ; Cicero's 
statement concerning, 

153; no term a among 
heathens, J 2, 8; Chris- 
tian designations of, 351- 
354; how designated by 
missionaries to China, 2, 3, 
52; belief in, by Stoies, 43) 
2 hymn concerning, 
841; origin of belief in, 
17, 288-394 ; influence of 

belief in, 27, 28, 884; cp. 


God, 
Surgeons, J 588. 
Switzerland, I 210, 211. 
Sylla, J Bll. 
Sylla, dictator, J 121, 153, 


’ 


208 


Sympath 
ment, 
Synagogues, 
some, J 98 ; 
welcomed to, 34. 


toa those in tor- 


adornment of 
heathens 


TABLE customs,. 
293-295. 

Tacfarinas, J 514. 

Tacitus,* J 14, 25, 65, 82, 92, 


Te 89-92, 


216, 2384, 

279, 282, 591, 307, 312, 314, 
867, 381, 447, 473, 476, 522, 
643; I 34, 69, 85, 213; U 

vi, 87; perverts history, 5 
Vv, 166, 1i7, 197, 222, 311, 
479, 584-541 : defames Ju- 
daism, 30; on omens, 310; 
character of gods, 19, 


Talent, worship of, J 364. 

Talfourd, T> Ni J 879. 

Tanfana, est 

Tariches, J 558, 505, 556, 
558, 559. 

Tarquinius Priscus, J 399. 

Tarquin, the Proud, J 398, 


899, 
Tarsus, J 11, 41,288 i tg 
Tartarus, J "430 ; Ul 1, 2, 25 


27, 28, '36 105. 
Tatian, F 44 7, 152, ae 
3, 62, 33. 68, 75, 78, 


182, 188, 184; U ‘109, 119; 
146; i57: 

Taylor, J 579. 

Telesinus, Cc. S., I 166. 

Temple at Jerusalem, J 33- 
et 551, 552; I 119, 120, 

174, 175 ; burned, 18 de- 

struction of, 382, 
alleged statue of Caligula 
for, J 215-222, 235 ; and of 
Claudius, 235; I 34. 

Ses ge Jewish, in Egypt, J 


Temple offerings, J 551. 
Temples, heathen, J 277, 
278, 314, 315; sanctuaries 
for criminals, 196. 
Terentius, Cneius, J 401. 
Terentius Maximus, J 492. 
Terentius; see Varro. 
Tertullian, * J 15, 68, 70, 
178, 311, 334, 344, 347, 387, 
414) 492) 431, 441, 474; 1 
2; 17, 25, 26, 30, 39, 63, 69, 
Ti, 142, 145, 146, 167, 187, 


105, 106, 108, "110, 112, 113, 





INDEX III. 


115, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 
124, 127, 145, 146, 149, 154, 
157, 160, 161; . his view of 
the "Underworld, 2; deems 
it the prison where the 
last farthing will be ex- 
acted, 99-100; deems bap- 
tism essential to salvation, 
55; his challenge to the 
4 heathens, 74-75 ; on fleeing 
~ in persecution, 745 on 
Sunday and Easter, 77, 78; 
' his use of satisfaction, 92; 
of transgression, 96; on 
the region under the altar, 
111 ; on ladies’ dresses, 
160 ; whether to be classed 
among Orthodox, 120; 
deems Paradise the Mar- 
ae privilege, 52, 58, 99, 


Tertullian, Hd hepa of, U 
10, 58, 105, 1 

Testaments ‘of the Twelve 
Patriarchs, J 117; U 42, 
47, 138, 152. 

Thaddeus, I 158. 

Thaddeus, Pseudo,* J 356 ; 
I 85, iT; 50, 158, 159, 160, 
161; , 136. 

Thamus, J 289. 

Theatre, J 197, 281. 

Thelesina, J 31. 

Theodoret,* I 184; U5, 105, 


153. 

Theodoric, J 387. 

Theodorus, J 574. 

Theodosius, L 5, 6. 

Theodotus, U 21; see Doct. 
Orient. 

Theophilus,* J 406, 412; I 
68, 75, 78, 182,200; U v0, 
80, 107, 119, 157. 

Theosophic Gnostics, U 4, 
18-26, 82, 98, 139; see 
Valentinians. 

Therme, J 523. 

Thessalonica, J 283, 235, 289. 

Thessalonians, J 237, 504, 

Thessalonians, * Ep. to, 
235, 239, 256 ; I 57, 85. 

Thiebault, J 364. 

Thilo, J 442, 462, 463; I 4, 
5, 6, 90, 91, 106 107, 110; 
124/126, 238; 142, 143, 145, 
146’; ‘ 

Third race, er 474, Ai. 

Thomas, I 158, 1 

Thought, a Gnostic term, J 


Thrasea Pettus, J 271, 283, 

Three destroyers of Rome, J 

Tiber, J 73, 77, 151, 152, 180, 
04, 496 


Tiberias, 554-559, ; 


Tiberius, J 74, 90, 91, 92 
110, 166, 179-199, 208, ‘989, 





r 1 ibe re of, 534. 
Tiberius, the grandson, J 104. 
‘Tiberius Alexander, J 99. 
Tibullus, J 69. 

Tigellinus, J 245, 246, 253. 
Timothy, J 53, 24, 257, 258, 
262, 461. 


Timothy,* Ep. to, J 249; I 


Tiridates, J 494. 

Tischendorf, I ee 

Titan, J 412, 41 

Titans, 428, 

Titles, which were avoided 
by Tiberius, a 513. 

se J 9, 80, 245, 271-274, 

5, "548, 561 ; I 204: 


veahcet 6 
ae father, a 258, 272; I 


19. 
Titus, a Gentile, I 9, 10 
Titus Lacing Bn 94. 
Titus,* Ep. yi ; 157. 
Tobias, I 158 
Toparch, I 5, 106, “107. 


| Torone, 


Torquati, J 73. 

Torture, J 283. 

Trajan,* J 81, 282, 284, 286, 
292, 302 Sn, 316 
608, 564; I 80, 198 ; revold 
of Jews under, J 332, 

Transgression; for transgres- 
sing angel (or angels), U 


Transmigration, J 27, 572. 
Trebians, J 74. 

Trebonius pope J 292. 
Triban : f th le, J 
ribunes o e people, 

395, 400, 401. 
Triephon, J 230. 
Trinity, doctrine of, an 50. 
ties Fulc., J 524, 580, 536, 


53 
Trismegistus ; see Hermes. 
Triumviral court, J 526. ~ 
Triumvirates, J 121, 156. 
Triumvirs, J 157, 542. 
Troas, J 41, 249; "195. 
Trogyllium, hi 
Trojan, war. ; game. 
73; chariot, 128. ‘ 
Trojans, J 406. 
Trommius, J 352. 
Trophimus, J 249. 


Troy 
446, 449; ‘its destruction 
due = a idolatry, 418, 


419, 
Truth, I 93, 94, 101, 119; 
a Gnostic term, 354, 
Trypho, J 182, 345, 350, 352, 

61; I 12, ’81,_ 90, 192, 


» 


J 8, 416, 417, 480, Fe 





WORDS AND SUBJECTS. 


206; U 39, 145, 147, 151, 


Tuscan history, J 120. 
Tuscianus,J 171. 
Tusculum, J 522. 
Tyler, hoegg J er 
Tyrannus 


Tyre, J 41. 
Tzetzis, Isaac, J 396. 


, LT. 
Unbelief, J 116, a8, war 
Bit oe rosecutions for, 
mee falsely at- 


nibetea "to Tiberius, J 
8, 584; disregarded by 
Tiberius, 506; record of, 
engraved by Caligula, 8, 
5384; made punishable by 
Plato, 576. 

Unbeliever, unbelievers, J 
468 ; a term for monothe- 
ists and Christians, 10, 319, 
473; I 54, 

Underworld; the, 7 126, 334, 

~aaerk 501, "s71; 
a. p 90) H 


ind, 137 178; ‘gates 
a 5 498 ideas of it at 
the Christian era, U 1-3; 
Plato’s vee of, Re Ter- 


122, ad 124 ; "Heathen 
conceptions of its discom- 
forts, 97, 98; Christian 
conceptions of the same, 
98-101; view in the Rule 
of Faith, 161-162 ; destruc- 
tion of, "98, 155; I 149; 

Satan, its ruler, see Satan ; ‘ 
how early a_ belief of 
Christ’s mission to it arose ; 
U 8, 48, 49, 52, 129, 182; 

origin ee this belief, 8, 48, 

49-53, 54, 127-130 ; sun 
and stars in, 164. 

~ Underworld Mission ,J 24, 46, 


50, 334, 336, 
847, 349, 352, 356, 480, 481, 
445, 485, 486, 499, 572, 573. 
Unicorn, 345. 
United States, J 182, 219, 
869 , 376, 377, 386, 473, 587; 
T2il. 


Universe, spherical, I 16. 
Ur, J 410. 
Uriel, J 427, 428. 


VALENTINIANS, J 54, 332-336, 
8538; I 77, 171, 185, 187, 


ous 07? | 





ea U 19-26, 48. 64, 78, 
6, 106, 122-135, 1 ig, 131; 
538, 140, 152; divided man- 
kind into three classes, 19 ; 
they used the term ‘ Hiesh 
of the Logos,’ 22. 
Valentinianus, rag aS 6. 
Valentinus, J "331, 
874, 375; I 1805 iecnet 18, 


Valerius ; see Flaccus. 
Valerius Maximus,* J 119, 
Vandals, J 562. 
Vanderkemp, Dr., J 389. 
Varenus, J 316. 
Varro, Cingonius, J 88. 
Varro,* M.T., J 42, 119, 120, 
rn 398, 399, 405, 416, 488, 


7. 

Varro, Vibidius, J 511. 

Varus, J 479. 

Vatienus, I 163. 

Velleius Paterculus, * J 455. 

Venus, J 273; I 76. 

Versipellis, U 280. 

Vespasian, J 10, 11, 54, 80, 
82, 85, 89-92, 125. 127,204 
44, 255, 270-274, 284, 490, 
495, 544, 545, 549, 550, 558} 
I 203, 204 ; prediction con- 
cerning, 7 559, 560. 

Vesta, J 115, 135, 176. 

Vestal Virgin or Virgins, 
J 135, 176, 190, 197, 286, 
296, 297. 

Vesuvius, J 19; eruption of, 
274, 275, 438, "492, 

Vibius Serenus, J 479, 480. 

Victorinus of Pettaw, T 32. 

Victory ; see Christ. 

Vienna or Vienne, J 292, 
835; I 47, 

Vindicate, applied to Christ, 

, 68,114; to God, 114. 

Vindicator, U 114; a title 
of Christ (?), 87. 

Vinicius, Marcus. J 521. 

Vipsania, Agrippina, J 517. 

Virgil,* J vi, 157, 421, 450, 
452: imitates Erythreean 
verses, 60, 160, 208, 277, 
414, 419, 422, 497, 489 
97, 16 4; borrows from 
them the advent of Aineas 
in Italy, J 408, 404; pan- 
‘theistic ideas of, 409 ; his 
Jewish views, 430 ; politi- 
cal antagonism of his 
Georgics and Mneid, I 


Virgin, I 177; sacred, 174; 
Sibylla, J 495 ; Eve, 4380 ; 
a city, 122. 

Virginia, J 177. 

Virginius, J 242. 

Vitellius, J 80, 85, 
127, 131, 132, 490, 
154, 155, 156, 


128 125, 
495 ; 





209 


Vitellius, pees, J 511. 
Vologesus, J 492 

Voltaire, J 363, 364. 
‘gy Wart, Rudolph, I 


Vonones, J 185. 
Von Raumer, J 95. 


Wake, I 75. 

Walch IT 151. 

War, i 65, 209, 212 ; under 
Hadrian, 65, 80, 12 26, 173, 
190 ; more common under 
senatorial princes, J 82- 
83, 274; remedy for, 380. 

Warm water, evidence of un- 
belief, J 223. 

Watts, U 98. 

Wayland, J 590. 

Wedding in Burmah, U vii. 

Week, days of, named after 
planets, J 68, 69. 

Weeks, division of time into, 
J 66-68. 


Wesley, I 188. 
Westminster Assembly’s 
Confession and _  Cate- 
ad U 110, 185, 169- 


Westminster ro J 267. 
Wetstein, U 58, 

Whately, I 207. 

big e a penalty, I 210, 


Whiston, J 554. 

Wilkinson, J 510. 

William IiL., I 208. 

Williams, Eleazar, J 491. 

Windmills, J 381. 

Wisdom, J 48, 49. 

Wisdom of Solomon, * J 51, 
580 ; 

Wise men, I 201. 

Witch of Endor, U 44-45. 

Woman, J 375, 376, 386; ; 
of laboring class, 380. 

Wood, symbolic, J 845. 

Workmen, J 226, 381. 

World, supposed. early ideas 
of its structure, 

be ea Ses Satan, 
Devil), U 26, 59, 64, 

World-rulers (ep. Demons, 
Powers, Spirits), U 74. 

Writing, J 382. 


Xavier, Franots, I 151. \ 
Xenophon, * J 368, 496, 565, 


568, 
Xiphilinus, J 492. 
YUH-HWANG-TA-TE, J 2. 
Zeno, J 41, 42, 48. _. 
Zeno of Tarsus, J 41, 


Zoroaster, J 38. 
Zosimus, J 451. 








HOME USE = 
CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
MAIN LIBRARY 


This book is due on the last date Stamped below. 
1-month loans may be renewed by calling 642-3405, 
6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books 
to Circulation Desk. 
S and recharges may be made 4 days prior 
to due date. 
ALL BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TQ REC 


Renewal 


ALL 7 DAYS 


LN ABFER DATE CHECKED QUT 
, Re a Of 4 


TF es 
AX g@ 


LOA Ny 


REG. CIR. OCT 


eee 


TT Oe Beebe ee 
pad. ©. .BERKELEY General Library 
(52700141) 


University of California 
Berkeley 


F a sty 
sf i = 


“LD 21-100m-7,'33 








gon 








oan 


bat 
SN 
3 4 
ve 
ae aa 
: ; ; ro hye 
Tos. 2 A Lone . p = ; rea Sabian 
Fe ae rs 2 0 be re f “ : 
aearired ; 


See, 5 a ‘ rn . : : : 
= ; ee ey aS 
7 ows, = 


$35 
eis 


: ee) 
SENS os ea SS 
SOs we Mtn ; ek 


Sarre 


uider 


i 
: 


zi isei ; re 


ess 
nn Se! on 
tat, 2 ; , : : 2 . ware Serer 
eres ) : See eee 
yz 


Sean 
sires 
wae 


RS 


: oe 
etn ” 
Dee crete tS ep eg gi ees ae 


( * - y 
aoaet * one 
’ °. ~ : ~ Kes * i. A 
SZisys 5 a : : : ~ 


Renee 





5 gahigrahas 


